Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUNG PERSONS (BLIND-ALLEY EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Bull: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that boys in the bakery department of the Birmingham Co-operative Society have to sign an undertaking that they would leave at 18 years of age; and whether he will take steps to discourage, as far as possible, the absorption of young persons into such blind-alley occupations?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I understand that boys entering the service of the Birmingham Co-operative Society as bread deliverers' assistants are required to sign a statement acknowledging that they have been informed that employment in this capacity will not be continued after the age of 17, and that they understand that it will be in their own interest to look for other employment after the age of 15 years and 9 months. I am fully alive to the difficulty of the problem presented by blind-alley employment. Boys and girls are advised, wherever possible, to take up employment affording continuous prospects. Where, however, employment offered is blind-alley it is better that the offer should be accompanied by a definite warning from the employer.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a matter of

fact, of the large numbers employed by the Birmingham Co-operative Society, no one has been turned off on account of age within the last three years?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that, but I am aware that this will commend itself to many industries where settled employment is not possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MUNITIONS FACTORY, EUXTON.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons who have been found work on the Government munitions factory at Euxton through the Hindley and West-houghton Employment Exchanges?

Mr. E. Brown: The numbers of persons who have been placed in employment at this site from the Hindley and West-houghton Employment Exchanges are 45 and 85, respectively.

LANCASHIRE (SITE COMPANY).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made consequent upon the formation of a site company for Lancashire?

Mr. E. Brown: I have received formal representations from five areas in Lancashire and Cheshire for the application of Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, and I understand that other representations may be expected in the course of a few days. Steps will be taken to deal with these representations as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Davies: May we take it that the Department of the right hon. Gentleman will assist the site company to make a start as soon as possible?

Mr. Brown: We are doing everything we can to that end.

BARNARD CASTLE.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed signing on at the Employment Exchange in Barnard Castle town; and how many of such unemployed come under the original unemployment scheme and the agricultural workers scheme, respectively, on 30th September, 1937, 30th November, 1937, and 30th January, 1938?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Table showing the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Barnard Castle Employment Exchange at 13th September and 15th November, 1937, and 17th January, 1938, distinguishing persons insured under the general scheme and under the agricultural scheme of Unemployment Insurance.

Date.
Number Registered as Unemployed.
Insured persons included in previous column.


General Scheme.
Agricultural Scheme.


13th September, 1937.
209
196
5


15th November, 1937.
231
206
10


17th January, 1938.
253
230
11

Corresponding figures are not available for other dates in these months.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, at the Coed-y-Brenin labour training centre, no conveyance is placed at the disposal of the trainees who wish to go seven miles away to church on Sundays at Dolgelly; and will he make arrangements so that these men can attend to their spiritual duties?

Mr. E. Brown: The arrangements at this and other centres are that accommodation for religious services at the centres and transport for officiating ministers are provided free at appropriatee times. Certain services are conducted on Sundays at Coed-y-Brenin centre under these arrangements, and similar facilities are available for other religious denominations if desired.

Mr. Logan: The Minister must have misinterpreted my question. I ask him what arrangements have been made so that these men can attend to their spiritual duties at Dolgelly. Why is it that on six nights a week arrangements are made for a lorry to take men to the cinema and that on Sundays arrangements cannot be made for them to attend to their spiritual duties?

Mr. Brown: The House will see that the situation is entirely different. There are services now arranged for certain denominations, and we provide transport for the officiating ministers, and these facilities are open for all churches irrespective of their particular beliefs. We could not undertake the task of conveying everybody seven miles to the nearest town.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a clergyman comes seven miles to a service at the camp, and why cannot facilities be made for these young men?

Mr. Brown: Surely, this is a matter for local arrangement, and not for discussion here.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the Minister, in view of his kindly sympathy with suggestions of this kind, go into the question with the local authorities to see what arrangements can be made, so that these people can take part in these services?

Mr. Brown: I will try to find out what can be done about it.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Labour where are the training establishments under the Ministry in Leeds or other parts of Yorkshire; how many trainees are employed, and what is the capacity in numbers which can be employed; what trade or industry is being carried on in these establishments; and how many trainees have been found employment in normal industries?

Mr. Brown: There is one Government training centre in Yorkshire, that opened in November last at Leeds with a capacity of 550 men of whom there are at present 303 in training. The occupations taught are mainly in the building and engineering industries, but there are also classes in coach body building, hairdressing and wood machining. No men from this centre have yet finished their course and been placed in employment. There are instructional centres at Allerston, near Thornton-le-Dale, and Langdale End, near Scarborough, each providing 200 training places, of which 94 and 136 respectively are now filled. The training given in these centres is not vocational, but is intended primarily to restore the men's fitness for employment generally. Six


hundred and two men from these centres have passed direct into employment in industry.

Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the work in connection with these training establishments has been undertaken in consultation and agreement with the trade union locally?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I do not think that that is so.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour particulars of the manner in which he proposes to give further favourable consideration to an extension of the system of training centres in order to assist in finding an opening for the absorption of the marked surplus of labour in the depressed areas?

Mr. Brown: So far as training in the Government training centres is concerned, the facilities provided are under constant review and adapted to meet the prospective demand for labour in the occupations which can be taught at the centres. With regard to training for less skilled occupations improved workshop training of an elementary type is being given in the instructional centres and a new instructional centre is in course of preparation for giving men training in manipulative work or other work requiring no great amount of skill. Three more local training centres, to serve as preparatory centres both for the training centres and the instructional centres, are in course of preparation on the Tyneside and in South Wales, and will shortly be opened.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister try to make arrangements for these persons who have been out of employment for long periods, so that they may obtain the advantages and opportuntities of these training centres?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member knows of men like that, perhaps he will let me know, and I will see what can be done.

Mr. Day: Is it not the fact that there are an enormous number of people living outside these districts?

Mr. Brown: I think there is a misunderstanding about that.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not advisable that training centres should be in areas where they are most needed, and near to the homes of the men concerned?

Mr. Brown: That has been my desire in these additional centres.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND (AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT).

Major Rayner: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the large balance now in the agricultural account of the Unemployment Fund and assuming that there will be enough money for the purpose, he will consider reducing the waiting period from six days to three days, or even less, and also reducing the contributions of both employers and employed?

Mr. E. Brown: I expect to receive the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee upon the condition of the agricultural account of the Unemployment Fund before the end of the present month. I shall then be in a position to consider my hon. and gallant Friend's proposals together with others in the light of the amount of any disposal surplus in the account.

LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the views expressed by the Commissioner for the Special Areas of England and Wales on the question of the location of industry; and what steps he is taking to induce British or foreign firms to open industrial concerns in derelict villages in the Special Areas where suitable sites are available for factories and workshops?

Mr. E. Brown: In reply to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd December, 1937. As regards the second part, the Commissioners have power under the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, to provide facilities and to offer financial inducements to new industrial undertakings in those areas. (Including undertakings of foreign origin).

Mr. Leslie: Has the Minister given consideration to the report of the Commissioner on page 12, where he says that the Government cannot evade their responsibilities in this respect, especially after the introduction of tariffs and quotas?

ASSISTANCE.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that


the application of the benefit rate of 26s. under the first proviso to Regulation IV reduces the value of the disregarding of 50 per cent. of workmen's compensation quite substantially in small awards, he will instruct district officers to exercise discretion and thus give applicants the full value of the concession?

Mr. E. Brown: The Board inform me that their officers already exercise their powers of discretion freely to meet special circumstances where they exist in these and other cases and the Board do not think in the light of the provisions of the regulations that they would have good grounds for giving further specific directions on the lines suggested.

Miss Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that people who get a statutory concession on a figure basis are better off than those who get a concession on a percentage basis? As he is a very fair-minded man, will he agree to consider the position and put both parties on an equal basis?

Mr. Brown: I think discretion is generally used. If the hon. Member has any special case, perhaps she will bring it to my notice. A little difficulty arises because of the fall back given to a man and wife without resources.

Miss Ward: Of the two concessions I take it he will agree that a figure percentage is better than a percentage basis?

Mr. James Griffiths: Are we to take it that the Unemployment Assistance Board's officials or the tribunal have the right to disregard these concessions in computing the amount in exceptional cases, and, if so, will the officials of the Board act upon it?

Mr. Brown: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information in connection with a girl's bonus of 24s. paid to her by Messrs. Zan, Limited, of Wheelock, Sandbach, for good work in the past year, which led to her father's unemployment pay being reduced by 5s. a week for four weeks; whether he has received any information from the chief officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board at Crewe about the matter; whether

the girl's bonus was assessed as part of the family income; and what he intends doing about the case?

Mr. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand that the Minister knows nothing about this case?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I have not received an official reply, but I understand from other sources that the case was settled last Monday. I cannot give an official reply until I have received a reply from the Board.

Mr. Thorne: When the right hon. Gentleman gets a reply will he be good enough to circulate to all officers that this payment on a bonus system should not come into the assessment?

Mr. Brown: That is a matter for the Board, but I will draw the hon. Member's remarks to their attention.

Mr. Thorne: Are we to understand that this is the first time this has come to his notice?

MARYPORT DOCK AND HARBOUR.

Mr. Cape: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made towards the commencement of the work of reconditioning the Maryport dock and harbour?

Mr. E. Brown: The question of making a grant for this purpose has not yet been decided.

BENEFIT.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Minister of Labour the circumstances under which Mr. Edward Cunningham, 88, Claythorne Street, Glasgow, was refused standard benefit for his five dependent children by a court of referees in Bridgeton; and under what statutory authority a means test is applied to a fully insured person?

Mr. Brown: I am making inquiries, and I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour whether a person with general industrial unemployment stamps and agricultural stamps to his credit may have them totalled to enable him to receive unemployment benefit?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir, but such a person may draw consecutively the maximum amount of benefit to which he is entitled under each qualification taken separately.

Mr. Sexton: Is the Minister aware that a man may have 29 stamps in one section and 29 stamps in another, and where 30 is the qualifying number he is yet denied benefit?

Mr. Brown: It would not be 29 and 29, but 19 in one case and 29 in the other. This really was the most difficult point we had to consider in connection with the Bill when it was in Committee, but the Committee and the House came to the conclusion that this was the best way in which to solve the difficulty.

Mr. Lunn: Are we to understand that if a man gets 27 stamps and half a dozen agricultural stamps he can get unemployment benefit?

Mr. Brown: I did not say that. I was correcting the two figures. The hon. Member gave 29 and 29, whereas it is 19 and 29.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that a man can get 48 stamps and cannot be in benefit; he can get 29 stamps in one section and 19 in another and yet cannot get benefit? Is not that so?

Mr. Brown: That applies wherever it is difficult to draw the line in any scheme.

Mr. Sexton: What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do in this matter?

Mr. Brown: I am prepared to see that a man gets precisely the sum to which he is entitled under each section, and that he draws the full amount.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to meet the recent heavy increase of unemployment by plans for works of public value?

Mr. E. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to await the reply which will be given by the Prime Minister later to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in unemployment recently announced, he will expedite the examination by the

Economic Advisory Council of the preparation of schemes of work to meet future industrial depression?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am afraid I must adhere to the terms of the Treasury Minute appointing the Economic Advisory Council which lays down that their work should be confidential.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Economic Advisory Council has met of late, and whether it is undertaking an inquiry of this kind?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the latter part of the supplementary question, I must stick to the terms of my first answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part?

The Prime Minister: I should require notice of that.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent unemployment has increased since October in Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and Italy; and whether he can give the figures for these countries for the last four months?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply is necessarily long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that no comparison whatever can be made between the unemployment figures in this country and the unemployment figures in Germany?

Mr. Brown: I have done my best to make that clear in a rather long answer.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make it clear whether it refers to rates of wages and conditions as well as to the actual number of unemployed?

Mr. Brown: I am asked about the number of unemployed, but if the right hon. Member has other questions, perhaps he will put them down and I will do my best to get the information.

Mr. Lawson: Even in the German figures has there not been a great increase in unemployment in the last few months?

Mr. Brown: The figures show that on 31st October, 1937, there were registered 501,847 and on 31st December, 994,784.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under the Goering Plan there is no method of comparison?

Following is the reply:

In Great Britain the total numbers of unemployed persons, including those temporarily stopped as well as those wholly unemployed, on the registers of the Employment Exchanges at one date in each of the past four months have been as shown below:


18th October, 1937
1,390,249


15th November, 1937
1,499,203


13th December, 1937
1,665,407


17th January, 1938
1,827,607

In the United States of America, it was officially estimated, on the basis of information obtained from a voluntary census of unemployment, that in the period from 16th to 20th November the total number of unemployed persons, including over 2,000,000 who were working on emergency relief schemes, was between 7,822,900 and 10,870,000. Corresponding figures are not available for other dates. The numbers of applicants for work on the registers of the Employment Exchanges comprised in, or affiliated to, the United States Employment Service, were as shown below. The figures include persons provided with work on public relief work schemes:


End of October, 1937
4,393,092


End of November, 1937
4,421,076


End of December, 1937
4,874,924

Corresponding figures for January, 1938, are not yet available.

According to estimates made by the American Federation of Labour and by the National Industrial Conference Board, respectively, the total numbers unemployed in October and November were as follow:


—
American Federation of Labour Estimate.
National Industrial Conference Board Estimate.


October, 1937
8,491,000
6,363,000


November, 1937
9,268,000
7,585,000

Later figures are not yet available. Both these estimates include persons working on emergency relief schemes.

In Germany the numbers of persons registered at Employment Exchanges as unemployed were as follow:


31st October, 1937
501,847


30th November, 1937
572,621


31st December, 1937
994,784

Corresponding figures for January, 1938, are not yet available.

For Italy, official statistics of unemployment have not been published since September, 1935.

It should be observed that owing to variations in the scope of the statistics, and of the methods by which they are compiled, the figures given above do not provide a reliable basis for comparisons of the total amount of unemployment in the different countries.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the nature of the steps he is taking to cope with the increased numbers of the unemployed; whether he has a committee working on plans; and who are the members of such committee?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, the increase in unemployment to which the hon. Member refers is largely due to causes of a seasonal character and is not of such a nature as to call for the institution of measures, other than those which the Government are continuously applying for the stimulation of employment. As regards the preparation of plans for the future, this matter has not been overlooked and the Government are now considering what further steps they can take in conjunction particularly with local authorities. At the same time, I think it right to say that too much reliance should not be placed upon the possibility of doing more by such plans than contributing in some degree to reduce fluctuations of trade and employment.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a very heavy increase of unemployment during the last three consecutive months, and that it cannot be attributed to seasonal influences; and will he or the Minister of Labour be in a position to make a statement to the House at an early date


as to the nature of the plans and, generally, what the Government intend to do?

The Prime Minister: I did not say it was wholly due to seasonal causes, but was largely due to them. This is a season when these causes particularly operate. With regard to plans and any statement, no doubt the Government will make a statement when there is something to state.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government do or do not recognise that the time for preparing for a depression and for preparing plans is before the slump, and are the Government really doing anything about it?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the report of what I have said when it is published and consider it, he will see it is evident that we are considering it.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a definite relationship between the last four months' consistent increase of unemployment and the increased productive capacity of the individual, and is he further aware that none of the orthodox methods will solve the problem of unemployment?

Mr. Lawson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that there are a large number of questions on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (PENSION SCHEMES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour the number of pension schemes which are in existence in the distributive trades?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of employers in the distributive trades known to my Department to have had in operation at the end of 1936 retirement pension schemes for all or certain classes of their employés was 610. In a number of these cases the arrangements were made through associations or organisations operating group pension schemes.

Mr. Mander: Is it possible to obtain particulars of the detailed schemes?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure about that. I have been making inquiries, and I hope to be able to publish the results in two or three months.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he anticipates that he will receive the report of the committee considering the question of holidays with pay in time to take any action on its recommendations during the coming summer?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply given on 3rd February to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Smith: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, on receipt of this report, he proposes to publish it within a reasonable time?

Mr. Brown: I cannot say until I have received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down again when I receive the report, which I expect to do shortly.

Mr. Leach: If in the meantime this matter comes before the League of Nations Office, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to instruct his delegates not to queer the pitch?

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON TEXTILE CONFERENCE.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that other countries have decided to appoint representatives to a committee set up by the International Labour Office to examine the report of the Washington Textile Conference of last April, he will reconsider his decision and agree to cooperate in the work of this committee?

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. On the proposal of the representative of His Majesty's Government the Governing Body decided last week to set up a tripartite committee of its members for this purpose, and His Majesty's Government will, of course, be prepared to co-operate fully in the work of this committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the importance of the questions to be raised at the International Labour Office conference of experts on international migration, which is meeting at the end of this month, he has instituted or will institute discussion with the heads of other Departments on the ways in which His Majesty's Government can co-operate?

Mr. E. Brown: Invitations to attend this Conference have been issued by the International Labour Office only to those States members which are principally interested either in emigration to, or immigration from, countries foreign to themselves. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government has not been invited, and consequently no question of its co-operating in the work of the Conference arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

PERMITS (GERMAN CITIZENS).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits issued by his Department to German citizens for the purpose of taking up employment with Messrs. Siemens-Schucket (Great Britain), Limited; and whether he is satisfied that in the case of such employés their work cannot be done by British subjects?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having this information extracted and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an English Jewess after 11 years' service is being dismissed by this firm at the behest of their Berlin office, and will he take powers to see that this kind of anti-Semitism is not imported into this country?

Mr. Brown: I was asked for a general statement, but if the hon. Member desires to call my attention to a particular case, perhaps he will give me the information.

M. JACQUES COECKELENBERGHE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the grounds on which admission to this country was refused on 30th December, 1937, at Dover to M. Jacques Coeckelenberghe, thereby putting him to great expense and inconvenience, although he had

sufficient money for his journey and his papers proved that he was to visit this country as a guest with his expenses paid?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Leave to land was refused on the occasion in question because M. Coeckelenberghe was unable to satisfy the immigration officer that he would be in a position to support himself during his visit. Though he proposed to stay for a week or more, he had only about 20s. in cash and could produce no evidence that his expenses would be paid or that he would receive hospitality. He was allowed to telephone in order to try and get in touch with friends, but was apparently unable to obtain a reply before the boat sailed. When he arrived again on the following day the necessary evidence was forthcoming and he was allowed to land for a week's visit.

PRISONER'S RECORD.

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the prisoner in what is known as the Park Lane jewel robbery case, James Hynes, an American and regarded as a most dangerous criminal, was charged under the Aliens Act in 1933 and left the country but returned two months later, while in 1934 he was recommended for deportation; whether this man was deported when he was released from prison on 15th October, 1937; and how it was that he was allowed to remain in this country and commit further crimes?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the facts. When this man was recommended for deportation in 1934, every effort was made to establish his nationality. He stated at the time that he was a United States citizen born in San Francisco, but inquiries made in that country entirely failed to substantiate his claim, and it was ascertained that on two previous occasions in 1913 and 1917 when under arrest in America he had asserted that he was of Russian origin, which, if true, would give him no right now to Soviet citizenship. As his nationality could not be established the question of deportation could, unfortunately, not be proceeded with.

Sir C. Cayzer: Is it the general practice of my right hon. Friend's Department to prevent the entry of aliens with known criminal records?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, that would certainly be our practice.

DEPORTATIONS.

Sir C. Cayzer: asked the Home Secretary how many orders for deportation under the Aliens Act were issued in 1937; in how many of these cases the orders were actually executed; and how many of the persons concerned have been known since to return or try to return to this country?

Sir S. Hoare: 191 Deportation Orders were made in 1937. In 173 cases the aliens left the country under arrangements made by themselves or on their behalf. In six other cases arrangements for deportation are being made. In 11 cases deportation could not be enforced because the nationality of the person could not be established. In the remaining case the alien has had to be removed to a mental hospital. There is no record of any of the deported aliens having re-entered the country, and without an examination of the personal files it is not possible to say whether any of them has attempted to return and been refused leave to land at a port.

EVASION.

Sir C. Cayzer: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any reason to believe that increased numbers of aliens are reaching this country without proper passports; and what supervision is exercised at the different ports to ensure that undesirable aliens do not enter this country individually or unnoticed?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no reason to suppose that there has been any increase in the number of aliens surreptitiously entering the country. No alien may land in the country without leave of an immigration officer who scrutinises every passport with care, and the master of every ship is responsible for reporting the arrival of any alien and detaining him pending examination by the immigration officer. The greatest vigilance is exercised by the immigration staff who have the co-operation of the dock and harbour police as well as that of the Customs officers. Occasionally some person succeeds in evading the most careful system of control through connivance of members of a crew or by means of an irregular passport or otherwise but there appears to have been no material increase in such cases.

Sir C. Cayzer: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it has been the practice of the police to check from time to time the passports of known aliens in the London docks area?

Sir S. Hoare: I think my hon. Friend had better put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make a statement respecting the results of the visits of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to Berlin and Paris to examine the organisation of air-raid precautions in those centres?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to issue the handbook for householders describing the precautions to be taken in the event of air raids?

Sir S. Hoare: As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) on 3rd February, a supply of the book will be sent to local authorities, and distribution will begin in about three weeks when printing has been completed.

Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish hon. Members with a copy of the handbook?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I will see if it can be done.

Mr. Mathers: Will the handbook cantain information as to the responsibility for injury or any other happenings to voluntary workers under the scheme?

Sir S. Hoare: I think the hon. Member had better wait until the handbook is issued.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to invite representatives of the German Government to visit London to inspect British air-raid precautions in return for the visit recently paid to Berlin by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a supplementary question by him on Thursday last.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be only fair that Field-Marshal Goering should have an opportunity of inspecting our air-raid precautions over here?

Sir S. Hoare: That is a matter of individual opinion.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Field-Marshal Goering comes to London there will be a row about it?

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that General Goering is soaked in blood and is regarded as a butcher?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Home Secretary whether, in the case of the materials, such as adhesive tape, felt, etc., required for safeguarding private households and other establishments against aerial attack, he will follow the lines adopted for the provision of gas masks by placing the contracts for such materials on a national scale, giving preference where possible to factories in the depressed areas?

Sir S. Hoare: The articles referred to will not be supplied by the Government, but should be purchased in the ordinary way by householders and other occupiers of buildings. In these circumstances the question of contracts on a national scale, as in the case of respirators, does not arise.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to arrange that the air raid precautions officers from the various local authority areas and his Department's air raid precautions inspectors shall meet together at regular intervals for the interchange of information in the light of experience and coordinating ideas and practice?

Sir S. Hoare: In the course of day-today work there is already frequent contact between the officers of the Air-Raid Precautions Department and the local authorities, while the central training college which is about to be established will provide most valuable means for the interchange of information and ideas.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary which local authorities have submitted general schemes as to air-raid precautions and which have submitted partial schemes, and, as regards both classes, the respect date of submission; and whether he will consider laying upon the Table of this House, at monthly or other suitable short intervals, a White Paper giving information as to the authorities by which general and partial schemes have been submitted, the date of submission, and the date of the definitive decision of the Department thereon?

Sir S. Hoare: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on the 3rd instant. I will consider the suggestion made in the second part of the question.

Colonel Nathan: Is it to be understood, as regards the first part of the question, that no progress has been made?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; progress is being made every day.

Colonel Nathan: Is it to be understood that no schemes have been submitted, despite the lapse of a week since the question was put?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. and gallant Member must not make that assumption.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the list of schemes held up in his Department, with which people have lodged schemes, and are unable to get a decision?

Sir S. Hoare: I think it is early, in view of the fact that the Act was put on the Statute Book only a few weeks ago, to take any decision of that kind.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary whether the projected partial black-out and air-raid in the Metropolitan area will be partial as to the precautions but complete as to the area, or partial as to the area but complete as to the precautions, or partial as regards both the area and the precautions; and when he anticipates that it will be possible to arrange a practice black-out and air-raid in the Metropolitan area complete as to both precautions and area?

Sir S. Hoare: It will be desirable at the appropriate time to have an air-raid


precaution exercise in the London area, but I cannot say at present when it will be possible to carry it out or what form it will take.

Colonel Nathan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he is likely to be able to state that? Would it be helpful if I were to put down the question this day fortnight?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I cannot be precise on that point. We are at the moment receiving these schemes from the local authorities and others. As regards the further stage, I cannot give a more definite answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Muff: asked the Home Secretary when he will be in a position to make public the report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that I may expect to receive the report in two or three weeks' time. Until I have received and considered the report I am not in a position to make any statement as to its publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary whether in the last six months any further requests for the issue of permits for entrance into this country of Basque children have been made to his Department; and, if so, whether he can give details?

Sir S. Hoare: The only applications which can be traced are in respect of two Basque girls, who were refugees in France.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary the number of Basque children who have now been returned to their native country; and the number who still remain here?

Sir S. Hoare: The number of Basque children who have left the country is 1,073. The number remaining is 2,749.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the Home Secretary say in how many cases of these children that have been returned to Bilbao they have found that their fathers have been executed by General Franco?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not say without notice, and I should be much surprised if there has been any such case.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary the maximum period during which any Basque children have now been in this country; whether they are now required to have passports; and whether in respect of passport regulations they are treated collectively or individually?

Sir S. Hoare: These children all arrived together on 23rd May last. Children under the age of 16 do not require passports, and the last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Commander Bower: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these collective passports should, as far as possible, be replaced by individual passports, in view of the wide dispersal of the parents of these children, and especially in view of the unfortunate relations which the partiality of the Bilbao Children's Committee has engendered with General Franco's Government?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think any change is necessary in the ordinary procedure. We never require passports for young persons under 16, but in all cases we require full particulars.

Mr. Benn: Before the right hon. Gentleman assists the campaign for the repatriation of these children, will he inform himself how many children were massacred by Nationalist air raids recently?

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

FOREIGN OFFICERS' VISITS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of foreign police officers who have been given facilities to visit and study the procedure and organisation of the Metropolitan police force during the three years ended to the last convenient date; from which countries these officers came; and whether reciprocal facilities have been granted to the officers of the Metropolitan police?

Sir S. Hoare: One hundred and eighty-four foreign police officers from 35 different countries visited New Scotland Yard during the three years ended on 31st December, 1937; in some cases for a comparatively short interview and in


other cases for the purpose of more extensive study. Officers of the Metropolitan police force have from time to time visited foreign countries to study the procedure and organisation of their police forces, and every facility has been afforded whenever it has been requested.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the officers of the Metropolitan police force have been given those facilities?

Sir S. Hoare: Not without notice. I dare say I might get the figures if a question were put on the Paper.

RESIGNATIONS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the fact that voluntary resignations from the Metropolitan police force have risen from 125 in 1935 to 178 in 1936 and 263 in 1937, and that these increasing resignations are principally due to the serious interference with the prospects of promotion of ordinary members of the force brought about by the Hendon Police College scheme, he will look into this scheme with a view to its revision?

Sir S. Hoare: The figures show an increase of 138 in the number of resignations. Of these 96 were officers on short-service engagements whose prospects cannot be prejudiced by the Police College scheme and are indeed enhanced by the opportunity of selection for the college. No doubt the chief factor affecting the figures is the improvement in recent years in the prospects of employment in civil life.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that a number of these people unquestionably resigned because their chances of promotion had been disturbed, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable to take account of the general dissatisfaction in the Metropolitan police force with the present Hendon scheme, and to revise and improve it?

Sir S. Hoare: I would not admit the assumption that there is general dissatisfaction.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent public criticism of the administration of the Metropolitan Police, he will consider

the appointment of a committee of inquiry in order that the facts may be brought to light to the satisfaction of the public?

Sir S. Hoare: I know of no grounds for the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the administration of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the severe criticisms that have been uttered against individual police officers, and the increased number of such criticisms during recent years, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is because of and since the introduction of the Police College and the new system of training constables that the police have been subject to these criticisms?

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that my answer to those questions is in the negative.

Mr. H. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Metropolitan Police constables are being threatened with the loss of long-service increments unless they prove their zeal and efficiency by an increasing number of arrests and summonses; and whether he will publish the terms of a recent communication published to the force on this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I can assure the right hon. Member that no communication or threat of the kind suggested has been made with the knowledge or approval of the Commissioner of Police.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that an order was recently issued in the parade book in a Metropolitan Police station in a southern outer area of London which bears this interpretation and is in accordance with the implication in this question; that the order complained about the men not making sufficient arrests, or taking sufficient action, or reporting enough cases, and urging that they should be more active in future?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I am not aware of that fact. If the right hon. Gentleman will send me the details, I will certainly look into the matter. In answer to his question, I have stated what is the policy of the Commissioner and myself.

POLICE COLLEGE.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary the number of entrants to the Metropolitan Police College at Hendon who have previously had police experience; and the number of entrants who have not had police experience?

Sir S. Hoare: One hundred and thirty-five students admitted to the Metropolitan Police College have had, and 47 have not had, previous police experience.

PERIODS OF SERVICE.

Mr. H. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary when successful applicants to join the Metropolitan Police are informed that they will be offered long or short service engagements; and, if not so informed until after they have completed their training at the police training school, will he consider the advisability of applicants being informed before giving up civil employment to enter the training school?

Sir S. Hoare: Applicants are informed whether they are offered long or short service engagements after being selected by the Recruits Selection Board as suitable candidates for the Metropolitan Force, and their entrance to the training school is dependent on their accepting or rejecting whichever type of service they are offered. Every man, therefore, is aware of the position before he gives up civil employment to enter the training school.

ARRESTS ON SUSPICION.

Mr. H. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case in which the Lord Chief Justice criticised the system under which two police officers arrested an innocent person on suspicion of having committed a felony; what action he proposes to take with the view to preventing a repetition of such cases; whether the damages of £300 and the costs awarded against the police officers are to be paid out of the Police Fund; and, if so, what proportions will fall on the Exchequer and the London ratepayers?

Sir S. Hoare: With the permission of the House I propose to answer this question at the end of Questions. It is rather a long answer.

At the end of Questions:

Sir S. Hoare: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of making a statement on this case, and I wish first to express on behalf of the Commissioner and myself regret that an innocent and respectable man should have been subjected to treatment which gave proper grounds for an action for damages. The damages and costs will be paid by the Metropolitan Police Fund, which is constituted of equal payments from the Exchequer and from the ratepayers in the Metropolitan Police District. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree, the financial aspect of this matter is less important than the question of providing adequate safeguards for the protection of the liberty of the subject.
The reference in the question to the "system" which led to the arrest in this case raises two questions: First, the question of the statutory provision in the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, which empowers the police to stop and detain
any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner anything stolen or unlawfully obtained.
And, secondly, the question of the administration of this statutory provision. The statutory provision undoubtedly places on the Metropolitan Police a serious and difficult responsibility, but experience shows that if the community is to be protected a power of this sort is necessary in the public interest. On the other hand, it is essential that in the exercise of this power due regard should be had to the protection of liberty.
The question how best to give guidance to the police as to the exercise of their dual responsibility both to the community and the individual has been the subject of careful consideration, and an elaborate code of instructions has been issued by the Commissioner to the effect that while every officer shall be active and vigilant when there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, the greatest care must be taken to avoid any abuse of this power even at the risk of some guilty persons going free. I have reviewed these instructions and am satisfied that they give ample guidance as to the general principles which should be followed by the police.
Occasionally, as in the present case, a genuine mistake is made, but the rarity of such cases is, I think, an indication of


the care taken to guide and train police officers in the proper exercise of their duties. There will be no relaxation of the efforts of the police authorities to ensure that the Metropolitan Police shall in this matter take the utmost care to avoid action which involves improper interference with the liberty of the subject. The present case is an illustration of the principle of our law that if owing to human fallibility a mistake is made, the police are not above the law, and a remedy is available to the citizen.

Mr. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries with a view to satisfying himself, not only of the suitability of the instructions, but as to whether undue pressure is not brought to bear upon police officers in plain clothes to be unduly and improperly energetic in detaining people in this manner, and thereby running the risk of improper detentions in certain cases?

Sir S. Hoare: I have been very carefully through all the details connected with this question, and I am satisfied that the regulations are sufficient and that, speaking generally, they are carried out in the letter and in the spirit, but I will take account of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Macquisten: How many cases are there in which the man does not take action?

Sir Percy Harris: Is there any reason why the House should not see these regulations? Are they confidential, and could they not be laid on the Table of the House?

Sir S. Hoare: Regulations of this kind have always been regarded as confidential. I think the hon. Baronet will see that they must be confidential in the nature of the case, as they give detailed instructions when and how action should be taken, and in what kind of case arrests should be made. Obviously that is information which could not be broadcast.

Sir William Davison: As the gentleman concerned is one of my constituents, may I ask the Home Secretary how it came about under these instructions that this innocent man was arrested? What made the police think he was guilty of these charges?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot reopen the case here.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would it not be possible for steps to be taken to draw the attention of all ranks of the police force to the fact that individual efficiency does not depend upon the number of arrests that may be made?

Sir S. Hoare: They are already aware of that fact, and I see no reason for drawing their attention to it.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cases are much more frequent than he appears to imagine, but that many of the people concerned are too poor to take the necessary action?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; I am informed that that is not the case. It is possible for even the poorest persons to obtain the necessary legal aid, under the Supreme Court Poor Persons Rules.

Mr. Macquisten: How many people are going to take the trouble to bring an action?

Mr. Thorne: In the early part of his answer the Home Secretary expressed deep regret at the arrest of this respectable man. Does that mean that he has no respect for the man whose position is below that of what would be called a respectable man?

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM CENSORSHIP.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the character of many of the films that have recently been publicly exhibited and passed by the present unofficial trade censorship, but which have been objected to by many public bodies, he will now consider the desirability of setting up a Government censorship of films or set up a committee to consider the advisability of a national board of censorship for films and plays?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) on Thursday, 18th November, 1937.

Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this should be a national matter, and not a local one?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. As I said on the former occasion, I think the present system works well on the whole.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one gets a different opinion in each town?

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS MEDICAL BOARD.

Mr. Alexander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give further consideration to the case of Mrs. Allison, of 9, Albion Road, Rivelin, Sheffield, whose claim for compensation in respect of the loss of her husband has been rejected under the silicosis scheme, in spite of the fact that this man had previously been awarded compensation for silicosis at the full rate for a period of five years upon a certificate of total disablement due to this disease and that, after a post-mortem examination, the coroner certified that Mr. Allison's death was primarily due to silicosis; and whether he proposes to take such action as will prevent such injustices arising in the case of victims of silicosis?

Sir S. Hoare: I appreciate the feelings of the widow in this case, but I cannot accept the suggestion that any injustice has been done. The Silicosis Medical Board were fully satisfied, after a postmortem examination, that the death was caused by independent conditions and not by silicosis. The board have unique experience in the diagnosis of silicosis, and their decisions on such a point must be regarded as authoritative; and I am satisfied that they investigated this case with great care.

Mr. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the post-mortem examination on this occasion was at the request of the coroner, and that on the post-mortem report the coroner certified death as being primarily due to silicosis? Is he further aware that this case is typical of large numbers throughout the country, which give rise to grave dissatisfaction; and will he consider new legislation?

Sir S. Hoare: There were two examinations of this case, and the final authority, the Medical Board, came to the decision I have just announced. The Medical Board has always been regarded as the final authority, and I cannot see what better final authority one can have?

Mr. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Medical Board is not appointed by the Home Office, but is appointed under a completely local

scheme, and does he not think that there ought to be an appeal from it?

Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman will see that the difficulty is to know what better board one could have. I fail to see what better appeal one could have.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board is severely restricted in matters of this kind, because it is compelled to find that silicosis is the primary and sole cause of death, whereas in most cases silicosis is not the primary, but a subsidiary cause, and that the Board is prohibited by the Statute from certifying that death is accelerated by silicosis? Will he consider amending the scheme in order to bring this within it?

Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly take into account the points that have been raised. On my present advice, I have no reason to suppose that the Board is not an effective tribunal for the purpose for which it is appointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, MUNITION WORKS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary how many men were injured on Wednesday last at the munition works at Newcastle of Vickers Armstrongs, Limited?

Sir S. Hoare: One man only was injured, and I am glad to say that he has since been discharged from hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMING HOUSES, LONDON (POLICE RAIDS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary how many gaming-houses have been raided by the police in the Metropolitan area during the 12 months ended 5th February, 1938; and how many people have been fined or bound over?

Sir S. Hoare: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

During the 12 months ended 5th February, 1938, 94 search warrants under the Gaming Act were executed in the Metropolitan Police District. In 80 of these cases the warrants related to cafes, clubs or funfairs in which gaming machines were in use. As a result of the


ensuing proceedings, two persons were sentenced to imprisonment and 144 were fined. The number of persons bound over was 104, including 97 persons who were found frequenting the premises. The charges against 12 of the defendants were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act and in seven cases the proceedings have not yet been terminated.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the frequent cases of hardship involved through employers and insurance companies delaying payment to employés injured in the course of their work; whether he is aware that the employé is seldom financially capable of instituting legal proceedings, or willing to do so through fear of losing his chance of reemployment after recovery from his injuries; and whether he will take steps to secure more equitable procedure in such cases?

Sir S. Hoare: There are, of course, cases in which some delay is inevitable pending establishment of the employer's liability, but so far as I am aware payment is generally prompt and I have received no representations to the contrary. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of cases which he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON STREET NAMES (CHANGES).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the rapidity with which the names of streets are being changed in London; and what arrangements are made for information on all these points to be conveyed to taximeter-cab drivers, who otherwise will be largely ignorant of the destinations referred to in the new appellations?

Sir S. Hoare: It is the normal practice in the cab trade for changes in regard to the names of streets or of important buildings, etc., to be notified in the cab trade journals as a result of information received either from the Commissioner of Police or from other sources. A list of the more important of the re-named streets was in fact published in one of the cab drivers' journals on 18th December last.

Mr. Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it has been found necessary to make so many changes?

Sir S. Hoare: I think that is a question for which I am not responsible.

Mr. Macquisten: Why should not the old name be put below the new name, at any rate for some years?

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary what is the average number of electors per Member of Parliament; and in how many single-Member constituencies the number of electors exceeds the average by 25 per cent. or more?

Sir S. Hoare: Excluding University constituencies, the average number of electors per Member of Parliament in England and Wales is 53,518. In 79 of the 498 single-Member constituencies, the electorate exceeds this average figure by 25 per cent. or more.

Mr. Keeling: Do not these figures show that many constituencies are seriously under-represented in this House, and that therefore the demand for a redistribution is a reasonable one?

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that no scheme is perfect, and that there are these anomalies at any given time.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many constituencies are badly represented?

Mr. V. Adams: Do the Government contemplate any measure of redistribution before the statutory end of this Parliament?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on that subject about a week ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL POPULATION (GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Prime Minister when the report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of the geographical distribution of the industrial population will be completed; and, when ready, will it be issued as a Command Paper to Members of this House?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the Commission has taken a good deal of evidence, but much remains to be heard. It is not possible to say when the inquiry will be completed. When it is ready, the report will be issued as a Command Paper in the usual way.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS (STAGGERING).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the many expressions of public opinion on the subject, he will now appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of staggering holidays?

The Prime Minister: Evidence on this subject was given before the Committee on Holidays with Pay, and I think it would be advisable to await the report of that committee, which I understand is now in preparation, before deciding what further action may be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST SEA LORD.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister for what reason the appointment of the First Sea Lord, which had already been extended for two years, has been further extended for eight months, in view of the fact that his age is now 64, and that the late chief of the Imperial General Staff was asked to resign two years before the expiry of his original appointment on account of his age which was one year less; and why is there this differentiation between the two services?

The Prime Minister: The appointment of the First Sea Lord is being extended because His Majesty's Government consider that his retention for a further period would be in the best interests of the country. As regards the late Chief of the Imperial General Staff, he retired, as stated on 6th December last in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in order to facilitate certain changes in organisation. No question, therefore, arises of differentiation between the Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent declaration of Mr. Cordell Hull,

the United States Secretary of State, that the United States Government are ready at any time to join with other nations in a common effort to bring about a general limitation and reduction of armaments; and whether he will make a similar statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: I have seen in the Press a statement by Mr. Hull, in which he is reported to have said that while the United States are compelled, in a world in which the increased construction of armaments is a regrettable fact, to render adequate their military and naval establishments, they are ready at any time to join with other nations in a common effort to bring about a general limitation and reduction of armaments. I can assure the hon. Member that this is also the view of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of preparing the ground by arranging for the sending of a mission similar to the van Zeeland mission to make contacts with other Governments?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that that is the best way of preparing the ground.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

The Prime Minister: I am always considering these things.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the further statement of Mr. Cordell Hull protesting violently against the speech of Mr. Gilbert Murray at the National Liberal Club?

Mr. Macquisten: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that all efforts to reduce armaments have only led to increases?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PUBLICITY ABROAD.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether the new department or office presided over by Sir R. Vansittart will include our constitution, Parliament, democracy, religion, and freedom as elements of British culture which it is desirable to explain to the world?

The Prime Minister: The Co-ordinating Committee of which Sir Robert Vansittart is Chairman is neither a department nor an office. Its function is to coordinate and advise upon the work being done by various bodies engaged in British publicity abroad. Of these bodies the British Council, whose function is to spread a better knowledge of this country in the cultural and educational field, has already to a large extent acted on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion by means of lectures, pamphlets and other material.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply that it is not within the function of the Committee to recommend an extension of the excellent, but almost negligibly small, activities of the British Council and other bodies?

The Prime Minister: One of its functions is to advise on work being done.

Mr. Alexander: Are the Government considering the amount of assistance that can be given to this work?

The Prime Minister: That has already been considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS (MANSLAUGHTER CASES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether he has a record of the number of persons convicted of manslaughter arising out of road accidents in 1937 who were not permanently deprived of their licences?

Sir S. Hoare: As I explained in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) on 3rd February, the returns for 1937 are not yet complete. According to the provisional figures, there were 15 cases of conviction, in 13 of which the court imposed a period of disqualification. In one case disqualification was for life, in three cases for 15 years, in five cases for 10 years, and in four cases for seven years.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLES.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary the number of chief constables appointed during the years 1930 to 1937, and the number who have had police experience in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: During the years 1930 to 1937 inclusive, 106 chief officers of police in county and borough forces in England and Wales have been appointed. In 93 cases the candidate appointed had police experience in Great Britain, and in nine other cases he had police experience overseas.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREYHOUND RACE TRACKS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary how many greyhound racing tracks have been licensed under the provisions of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, during each of the years since the Act came into force?

Sir S. Hoare: The licensing authorities are not required to furnish to any central authority returns of the number of licenses granted by them. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COURT CONVICTION, WEST RIDING.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction of 14 persons at the West Riding police court on Tuesday, 1st February; and whether, in view of the fact that none of these persons has had any previous conviction, he will inquire into the matter with a view to remitting the sentences?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but I am causing inquiries to be made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Williams: When the right hon. Gentleman considers that report will he take notice of the fact that the 14 persons referred to were of ages ranging from 14½ upwards and have no previous convictions, and will he take into consideration the desirability of making use of the Probation of Offenders Act?

Sir S. Hoare: I am awaiting a report, and until I have received that report I cannot express an opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

BLACKBOARDS.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of


Education, whether his attention has been drawn to a report of an investigation by the National Institute of Industrial Psychology to the effect that the use of yellow blackboards with blue chalk is to be preferred to those at present in use; and whether he proposes to make any recommendation to local education authorities in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the adoption of the recommendations of the report is one for the consideration of the authorities responsible for the schools.

MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many schools in the county of Durham are not taking milk under the milk-in-schools scheme; and how many of such schools are situate in Teesdale and Weardale, respectively?

Mr. Lindsay: On 31st October, 1937, the number of departments of public elementary schools in the administrative county of Durham which were not operating the milk-in-schools scheme was 37. Of these, eight were in Teesdale (that is the urban and rural districts of Barnard Castle) and five in Weardale.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will immediately consult with the Milk Marketing Board with a view to securing that producer-retailers supplying milk to children attending schools in rural areas should have an additional price allowed them for the milk supplied, seeing that at the present time producer-retailers are unwilling to supply milk under this scheme owing to the high cost of transport and distribution, and that the margin of profit so obtained is insufficient?

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what further measures are proposed for the supply of milk for children attending smaller schools in the rural areas?

Mr. Lindsay: The matter to which my hon. Friends refer has for some time past been the subject of consultation between

the Board of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Milk Marketing Board and was discussed on 21st January at a conference of bodies interested in the milk-in-schools scheme. My Noble Friend hopes that it may be possible to arrange for an increased distribution allowance in the case of small and remote rural schools where the existing allowance can be shown to be insufficient, but I am not at present in a position to make any announcement on the matter.

Mr. Alexander: If that be the case, is that increased allowance to include the cost of pasteurisation, because if the milk is not to be pasteurised no increased allowance is necessary?

Sir Arnold Wilson: Has the hon. Gentleman had any indication that children in rural areas have not done better with raw milk than with pasteurised milk?

Mr. Lindsay: I would rather not go into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It may be possible to allow for an increase in the distribution allowance, but I am not at present in a position to make any announcement. The situation has to be considered in connection with the long-term policy of the Government in collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture, and until that is done I would rather not say anything.

Mr. Alexander: Is the hon. Member not aware that in the case of pasteurised and bottled milk the allowance at present made is ample to secure a proper service to schools?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of the country at least the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is not borne out by the facts? In some parts the increased cost of distribution is in fact stopping the supply of milk.

Mr. Lindsay: Apparently there is a difference of opinion.

Mr Macquisten: Why should children have this half-boiled milk shoved down them?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to say whether local education committees, who desire to do so, are empowered to arrange for free milk to be given to necessitous


school children, who are entitled to it, at their homes on days when they are absent from school because of illness?

Mr. Lindsay: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend's question of 3rd February, the milk-in-schools scheme at present applies only to milk actually consumed in schools or other approved centres, so that milk bought at the reduced price under the scheme cannot be supplied to the homes of children absent through illness. This difficulty would not arise if the milk were purchased by the local education authority outside the scheme, and if in such a case the authority were satisfied that it would be consumed by the children for whom it was intended, the expenditure so incurred would rank for the Board's grant.

Mr. Lipson: Why is it not possible for the milk to be given to the children who are absent from school through sickness?

Mr. Lindsay: The reason is that Clause 2 of the scheme distinctly prevents it. I would like to tell hon. Gentlemen who have asked this question that I am trying to find a way round, and to see whether it can be done administratively, but until the long-term scheme is in force, I do not think it can be done. The interests of dairymen and others are involved.

Mr. T. Williams: In such cases of illness could not the milk be collected at the school by the parent and taken home to the child?

Mr. Lindsay: As I say, that is distinctly disallowed under the scheme. The milk is to be drunk at school, but I am trying to find a way out administratively of getting the milk to school children in their homes.

Mr. McEntee: Can it not be done as a matter of interpretation?

Mr. Lindsay: If there is a way out I will certainly try to find it.

Mr. Tomlinson: If the education authority were to provide the milk out of its own resources, could it not be done if the authority had the assurance of the parent that the milk was being drunk by the child; and do I understand that the local authority would be allowed to participate in two schemes, one to provide for sick children and one for the children at school?

Mr. Lindsay: They can provide milk both inside and outside the scheme.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. Leach: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what progress has been made with the fitness campaign; whether any difficulties have arisen in acquiring land; whether the local authorities are fully co-operating; what grants have been made; and whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress registered?

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any grants have yet been made under the Physical Training and Recreation Act; and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. Lindsay: Grants have been approved by the Board of Education under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, in respect of 11 capital projects, including four swimming baths, three gymnasia, and four clubs, and many further projects are under consideration. Grants have also been made to the Central Council of Recreative Physical Training towards the training of teachers and leaders, and to 15 other voluntary associations towards the development of their work for physical training and recreation. My Noble Friend is not aware that any difficulties have so far arisen in regard to the acquisition of land, and as regards playing fields, a substantial sum is being placed at the disposal of the National Playing Fields Association. The establishment of the area committees has now been completed, and my Noble Friend is glad to have this opportunity of expressing his appreciation of the co-operation of local authorities in the setting up of the committees and of the assistance which they have afforded in regard to the temporary arrangements which were necessary until the committees could be provided with the requisite staff and office accommodation. Now that the area committees are getting to work, my Noble Friend has every hope that rapid progress will be made in the development of the facilities which the Act was designed to promote.

Mr. Leach: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how many local authorities have failed to approach him on this matter?

Mr. Lindsay: On which matter?

Mr. Leach: This campaign.

Mr. Lindsay: It is not the business of the local authority to approach us. Local authorities are working in co-operation with area committees on the various schemes.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the salary scales of physical training instructors in elementary and secondary schools still compare unfavourably with those of other members of the teaching staffs; and whether, in view of the desirability of raising the status of physical training instruction, he will arrange for the salary scales of the physical training staffs to be reviewed at an early opportunity?

Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend is unable to accept the suggestion that the salary scales of physical training instructors compare unfavourable with those of other members of the teaching staff. In public elementary schools instruction in physical training is normally given by certificated teachers whose training has included that subject. Where, however, a specialist teacher is employed, payment is made on the certificated teacher's scale. As regards secondary schools, non-graduate physical training instructors are paid on the same scale as other teachers who do not possess a University degree or its equivalent. The salary scales of these instructors, as of other teachers, come within the purview of the appropriate Burnham Committee.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what progress has been made under the Physical Training and Recreation Act with the commencement of the Physical Training College?

Mr. Lindsay: The acquisition of a site for the National Physical Training College is at present actively under consideration. The Board are also considering the detailed accommodation which will be required to meet the various needs of the college.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Logan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in view of the fact that the no-grant policy to non-provided schools is advocated in

Liverpool, what action does he intend to take to implement the working of the 1936 Education Act in that city?

Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend received a deputation from the Liverpool Education Committee on the 8th of this month to discuss the elementary school position in Liverpool. After a discussion of the difficulties of the situation, my Noble Friend decided to gather further information before reaching a decision.

Mr. Logan: As the Minister, owing to the delicacy of the situation, is unable to give me an answer, and I am anxious about it, would he be able, if I put a question down in a fortnight's time, to let us know in Liverpool the decision of the Ministry in this matter?

Mr. Lindsay: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the rather careful reply which I have just given, and I would not like to commit myself to a date.

Mr. Logan: Will the Minister object if I put this question down in a fortnight's time?

Mr. Lindsay: I could never object to a question put down by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT (THE POTTERIES).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his Department accepts the advice of the chief inspectors for dealing with the problem of smoke; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to set up the suggested joint committee of the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyne Corporations, as on page 14 of the seventy-third annual report by the chief inspectors, and to secure the employment of competent inspectors;
(2) whether his attention has been directed to pages 13 and 14 of the seventy-third annual report on Alkali, etc., Works, by the chief inspectors; and what steps are being taken, or are proposed, to put into effect the advice of the inspector?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): In accordance with the usual practice the suggestions made in the Chief Alkali Inspector's report for dealing with the smoke problem in The Potteries have been followed up. The


two corporations referred to, while they have not as yet seen their way to form a joint committee, have decided to adopt an active policy, and one of them has in fact instituted proceedings in a particular case. The technical suggestions in the report have been communicated to the corporations and to the research association of the industry who are investigating the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Monday: Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Coal Bill.

Tuesday: Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.

Wednesday: Consideration of Private Members' Motions. This will be the last Private Members' Motion day this Session.

Thursday: Committee stage of the Housing Money Resolution until 7.30 p.m.; Second Reading of the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill; remaining stages of the Blind Persons Bill and of the Population (Statistics) Bill; further progress will be made with the Dominica Bill [Lords]; consideration of outstanding Import Duties Orders.

Friday: Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

In the early part of the week we shall consider Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which are expected to be received from another place.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions with regard to Thursday's business? In the first place, the Housing Money Resolution is being set down only two days after the Second Reading of the Bill. In view of the fact that that Bill very gravely affects the housing financial provisions of the poorest local authorities in the country, is it not possible to postpone consideration of the Money Resolution, in order to give Members a longer time after the Debate in which to get in touch with their local authorities? Secondly, with regard to the outstanding Import Duties Orders,

those outstanding Orders are very important, affecting the standard of life of some of the poorest people. Is it not possible to get these Import Duties Orders discussed at an earlier hour, especially in view of the very little information that is now given in the White Papers?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Bill itself has been in the hands of hon. Members since the 4th of this month. The Money Resolution will be put down to-night, so that I think there will be ample time for everybody to see what is in it. With regard to the Import Duties Orders, these are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, exempted business, but I have no reason to suppose that it will be necessary to sit late in order to deal with them.

Mr. Benn: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to let the House know in tabular form how many times these additional taxes by way of Import Duties have been passed by Order of the House after 11 o'clock?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Import Duties Orders are going to be taken after 11 o'clock.

Mr. Benn: I was merely asking whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause a return to be issued for the information of the House.

Mr. Attlee: With further regard to Thursday's business, I notice that it is suggested that the time to be given to the Housing Money Resolution should be only till 7.30 p.m. That is but a short time for a very important subject, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is doubtful whether it will be possible to conclude the Debate by that hour. It is then proposed to take further stages of three other Bills, and then the Import Duties Orders. There is, therefore, every reason to fear that these will not come on very early, having regard to the time that the House may require for the Money Resolution.

The Prime Minister: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it that, when I mentioned half-past seven, I was intending to tie the House down too strictly to that time. It was intended merely as an approximation. If further


time should be required, we should be prepared to give it. With regard to the other Orders, although I know the list sounds a long one, these are matters which have already received a great deal of attention from the House, and there is no reason to think that any prolonged time will be required for them.

Mr. Buchanan: The Prime Minister is proposing to take on Thursday the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with National Health Insurance, which is not likely to be quite so easily dealt with. There is also another Bill which raises a rather important matter akin to National Health Insurance. In view of these facts, will not the Prime Minister reconsider the business for Thursday?

The Prime Minister: The National Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill is not really a big matter in itself. It arises out of a legal decision. I do not want the House to think we are attempting to drive them: our desire is to make things as easy as possible.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the Import Duties Orders, since the beginning of this procedure the information given about these Import Duties Orders has become less and less. We have no information with regard to profits, no information as to where the goods come from, and no information as to labour conditions. We have to wait until after 11 o'clock to get any information at all, and that puts the House in very great difficulty.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I should like to add my protest on this point. The Prime Minister has told us negatively that we ought not to assume that the Import Duties Orders will be taken after 11 o'clock, but they always have been on recent occasions. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that they will be started well before 11 o'clock, so that we may have an adequate discussion on the important issues that will be raised?

The Prime Minister: I can only say that we will do our best, and hope that they will not need to be taken at a late hour.

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the last occasion on which one of these Orders was brought before the House, the proceedings started after midnight; and would he consider, if I put a question down, granting a return showing on how many occasions these Orders have been taken after 11 o'clock?

The Prime Minister: As I have already mentioned, these Orders are exempted business. I will consider making a return, but I do not know that it will be of any assistance.

Mr. Attlee: I should like to put two other questions with regard to business. Do the Government intend, as has become the practice now, to give a day for a general discussion on Defence before the Debates take place on the Estimates; and how far is it intended to go to-night in the event of the Motion on the Paper for the Suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: To the right hon. Gentleman's question about a Defence Debate the answer is "Yes." The arrangements will be made through the usual channels. With regard to the business to-night, the House will have heard, from the statement on business, that we are giving Monday for the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Coal Bill. I hope we shall be able to make such progress to-day that it will be unnecessary to ask the House to sit late. I think it should be our aim to reach a point in the Schedules before the House rises to-night that will ensure the conclusion of the Committee stage on Monday next, and I hope it will be possible to achieve that aim without sitting late.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister, before the Defence Debate, issue a White Paper on Defence? It is a considerable time since we had a White Paper in any detail about the operations of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and Defence organisation generally, and I suggest that it is time the House had it.

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to do that.

Mr. Leach: The Prime Minister made an announcement referring to next Wednesday and private Members' business. Is that an undertaking that no private business Motion will be put down that night?

The Prime Minister: That is not a question which should be addressed to me. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 127.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt. Col. G. J.
Everard, W. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Apsley, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Assheton, R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Granville, E. L.
Patrick, C. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, O.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peat, C. U.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Grettor. Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Radford, E. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm' b)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Rankin, Sir R.


Blair, Sir R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harvey, Sir G.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brown, Brig.-Gom. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rowlands, G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Salmon, Sir I.



Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.



Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cayzer Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Samuel M. R. A


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandys, E. D.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Savery, Sir Servington


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hulbert, N. J.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, s.)
Hunter, T.
Selley, H. R.


Clarrv, Sir Reginald
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (wavertree)



James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Perston)
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colville, Lt.-col. Rt. Hon. D. J
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Craven-Ellis, W.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spens, W. P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall W. S.
Storey, S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cruddas, col. B
Lipson, D. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sutcliffe, H


De Chair, S. S.
Lottus, P. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


De la Bère, R.
Mabane, W. (Huddertfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, C. S, (Eastbourne)


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. c. A. (Padd., S.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L


Doland, G. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macquisten, F. A.
Touche, G. C.


Duckworth, w. R. (Moss Side)
Magnay, T.
Train, Sir J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Making, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Manning ham-Buller, Sir M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.




Markham, S. F.
Turton, R. H.


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Marsden, Commander A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Emery, J. F.
Mellar, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emwistle, Sir C. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, E.
Morgan, R. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)







Windser-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Wise, A. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Grimston.


Withers, Sir J. J.






NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Attention, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddt'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechallpel)
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. dete


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bevan, A.
Holline, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C' thn's)


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-heSp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinaon, G.


Dobbie. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. VV.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muff, G.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

Reported with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 46.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment Insurance Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to give effect to an International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and to amend the provisions of the Patents and Designs Acts 1907 to 1932 relating to matters affected by the said Convention; and to give effect to an International Agreement regarding false indications of origin on goods and

to amend the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 to 1926 relating to matters affected by the said Agreement." [Patents etc. (International Conventions) Bill [Lords.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th February.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and procedure of the Coal Commission.)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, in page 44, line 19, to leave out "a member, or."
This Amendment is certainly less controversial than many which have been discussed in Committee, but it raises a point to which we wish to draw attention. The President of the Board of Trade will agree that the whole intention of Paragraph 4 of the Schedule is to make membership of the Commission perfectly free from direct interest in the mining industry. Of that we have no complaint. Paragraph 4 states:
A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Commission so long as he is a member, or an officer or servant, of an organisation of employers or of workpeople in the coal-mining industry, a practising mining engineer, or in any other manner directly connected with that industry.
I can well understand a man who is appointed to this Commission having to sever his active connection with a trade union, with, say, the Mineworkers' Federation or the Mining Association of Great Britain, but I cannot see the significance of the requirement that a man should relinquish his membership of a trade union if he desires to retain that membership. Men who join a trade union often do not like to leave it under any circumstances. Indeed in some districts, when a man gives up colliery work and goes into business or takes up another occupation, there are cases in which he has been allowed to retain his membership of the union for old time's sake. While I agree that it would be as well for any officer connected with the industry to be disqualified from becoming a member of the Commission I do not see the significance of the man being required to relinquish his membership of a union.
Apart from that, there appears to be a little discrimination made regarding the persons who would be connected with either the workers' organisation or the employers' organisation in the mining

industry. The paragraph I have quoted mentions "a practising mining engineer." I presume that an engineer who is not practising could be a member of the Commission and perhaps could also maintain his membership of the Institute of Mining Engineers. I may be wrong. Again, you may have on this Commission a man who is put there because he has experience and knowledge of mining or surveying, and I should say, looking at the composition of the Commission and the work that it will have to do, that it is possible you may have a man placed on the Commission for his knowledge and experience on the surveying side of mining. If such a man was appointed to the Commission, according to the wording of paragraph 4 he would not be compelled to leave the association of which he was a member. He would still be able to maintain his membership of that body.
I will go further, and say that, if a member of the Commission were a member of the legal profession, I do not think that the mere fact of his membership of the Commission would compel him to resign from the Law Society. We have put down this Amendment, in order to point out that, in our opinion, it would be no handicap to a man's work on the Commission if he were allowed to retain his membership of a trade union. The implication, in some people's minds, is that, if anybody has had experience in the mining industry, on either the workers' or the employers' side, he may in some way be prejudiced if he remains in contact with his organisation. I do not see how the mere membership of a trade union would stop a man from doing what he believes to be the right thing on the Commission. One can see that if a man were an officer of a trade union, he might be in some way prejudiced. I recognise the strength of that argument, but I cannot see how the mere fact of his being a member of a union could prejudice him.

4.18 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I quite appreciate the reason for which the hon. Member has moved this Amendment, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. The hon. Member has argued entirely on the basis that continued membership of a trade union would not necessarily make a man biased. That is true, but I think it is


important that where we are insisting on the impartiality of members it is not sufficient to say that a man will not necessarily be biased; we should, as far as possible, remove any grounds for making people think that the man might be biased. If you are to allow a member of the Commission to remain a member of the miners' trade union, you must allow another member to remain a member of the Mining Association. I agree that a person who has had to sell all his interests, and yet remains a member of the Mining Association, might do his work without any bias, but I suggest that a great many of the people with whom the hon. Member is associated would think that such a man's continued connection with the Mining Association would prejudice him in some way. Continued association with a trade union would give rise to suspicions, however groundless they might be.
Quite apart from that, from the man's own point of view, I think there would be some disadvantage in accepting the Amendment. When a man becomes a member of the miners' trade union, he has to be a member of a particular lodge, which is associated with a particular district. The Commission might have to deal with a matter in that district, with regard, for instance, to the levelling down of royalties in that district, and it might create difficulties for a member of the Commission who was also a member of the union if he shared responsibility for the decision to level down the royalties in that district.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will yield to further argument on this matter, because it seems to me that he has failed to meet the point my hon. Friend has put. It is true that a member of the Commission, although retaining his membership of a particular organisation, could at any time sever his active connection with that organisation. There is nothing in the Amendment which affects the partiality of a member of the Commission. Surely, membership alone of a trade union is not sufficient to indicate a strong bias. Men who have been connected with organisations for a long time like to maintain their membership, very often, for sentimental reasons. On that ground it would be unfair to ask them to sever their membership as a condition

of becoming a member of the Commission. Moreover, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to create any distinction between a miner who might become a member of the Commission and an owner, or someone associated with the owners' side of the industry. In the case of an owner, or someone associated with the owners' side, he may, under the right hon. Gentleman's dictum, be compelled to sever his association with a particular organisation, but he is not compelled to sever his connection with the interests concerned. There are the social interests, club interests and countryside interests; and associations of that kind induce a greater partiality than does the loose membership of a particular organisation. If that is open to a person on the owners' side, why should the right hon. Gentleman seek to prevent a person who comes from the workmen's side and is a member of the Commission retaining his membership of the miners' organisation?
There is no question here of maintaining active contact. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's objections if it were proposed that the person who retains his membership of an organisation and becomes a member of the Commission, might maintain an active contact, taking an active interest in the affairs of the organisation. For example, if he were a miner and persisted in attending the meetings of his lodge and taking an active part in the discussions, or spoke on the public platform, espousing the cause of the miners, that might be regarded as active partiality, but nothing of the kind is being proposed. There is a trade union organisation called the Amalgamated Engineering Union. It is one of the oldest trade union organisations. There are many men who have severed their connections with the engineering industry many years ago and yet retained their membership of that organisation. There are, in fact, many hon. Members on this side of the House and, I believe, some on the other side, who are members of that union, though not active members. Is it supposed that, because of that membership, their partiality goes so far as to induce them to take up one side or the other? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman thinks nothing of the sort. Therefore, this Amendment should receive further consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.


What is open to one member of the Commission ought to be open to another, and if the owner member of the Commission is permitted to retain certain associations which may influence him in the owners' interest, surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, by way of trade union membership, to the person who represents the mineworkers.
Finally, I put this practical point to the right hon. Gentleman. We have a somewhat analogous case. I admit that it is not quite the same, but there is an analogy. The existing Coal Reorganisation Commission, which is to be abandoned under this Bill, has on its board a member who is an active member of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. When he was appointed, it was well known that he occupied a very prominent position in the Federation, and he still occupies that position. The same applies, I think, to other members of that Commission who are associated with shipping, which does affect the operation of the Commission to some extent. It is true that the Coal Reorganisation Commission was responsible only for promoting the amalgamation of mining undertakings, and is not, like this Commission, the actual owner of the coal, but that is the only difference. Surely, it would not be urged by the right hon. Gentleman that the presence on the Coal Reorganisation Commission of a person—a very able and competent person, as I think he will agree—who is not only a member of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain, but the president of that body, taking a very active part in its deliberations, has in any way resulted in partiality. That gentleman has been able to bring an open mind to bear on the problems with which the Coal Reorganisation Commission is faced. If that is so, surely the same thing would happen in this connection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give further consideration to the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I think the Mover of the Amendment suggested that a member of the Law Society, as such, should not be entitled to sit on this Commission.

Mr. T. Smith: The hon. Member has missed the point. What I said was that supposing a lawyer was on the Commission,

that fact would not demand his resignation from the Law Society.

Sir J. Withers: As long as it is understood that if he is not taking an active part on either side and is not a prejudiced person, he is not necessarily precluded from sitting on the Commission, I am satisfied, but I rather gathered that it was the other way round.

Sir Stafford Cripps: What does the hon. Member mean by "either side"?

Sir J. Withers: Either the miners or the owners.

Sir S. Cripps: There is no difference in this matter between the miners and the owners. This body is not a body appointed to settle wages, but to own coal; it is going to act as the landlord, and the two sides in the matter are the Commission on the one side and the owners on the other. The miners do not come into the picture.

Sir J. Withers: If that be the case, then I do not understand what paragraph 4 deals with at all.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I must say that I do not think the analogy of the Coal Reorganisation Commission is a good one. This new-Coal Commission will take decisions "on its own," whereas whatever decisions are taken by the Reorganisation Commission are subject to future revision both by Parliament and by an independent Commission, and I submit that it is a very important difference. I am not saying that continued membership of a trade union will necessarily make a man partial, but I think it is very important to avoid the suspicion that he might be. Would hon. Members opposite say that among the people whom they represent continued membership of the Mining Association would not make them suspicious and that, however little ground there might be for it, they would not think that, as a member of the Commission, he might be partial?

4.33 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I will answer that question gladly. I do not think it would make two pins of difference. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well—he knows as well as I do—that membership of the Mining Association would not make two pins of difference. These people will


meet just the same, whether they are members of the Mining Association or not. They will meet in their clubs, in Newcastle, or London, or wherever it may be, or they will meet as directors of companies and in 101 other ways, constantly, and be able to discuss these problems. It will not make two pins of difference whether they are members of the Mining Association or not. How often do the individual members of the Mining Association ever meet, as such?

Mr. Stanley: I have no idea.

Sir S. Cripps: Then what a preposterous argument to put forward.

Mr. Stanley: I can imagine the kind of speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman would make if a member of this Commission were to continue his membership in the Mining Association.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman says he can imagine the kind of speech I should make, but let me tell him that we were perfectly well aware, when we put down this Amendment, that it would not permit a member of the Mining Association to become a Commissioner. The view that we took was this, that he would not be affected in any way, that he would still have all his associations with other people, and that it would not make any difference to the question whether or not he was- biased as to whether he maintained nominal membership of the Association or not. On the other hand, a member of a trade union is a member of a body which is, as it were, a social as well as a business body. His connection with his friends is very largely through his trade union. He has not got a lot of clubs or directorships, and therefore he would like to retain his membership of his union.
There is a social aspect of the membership of a trade union, and it is that side that we desire to safeguard. If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen that nobody should have any connection with anything at all connected with the mining industry, surely he must say the same with regard to mining engineers and mineral agents and everybody else of that sort, and the mining engineer and the mineral agent must give up membership of his professional institution, or else he may go and discuss the matter in his professional institution with his friends, and they may bring pressure to bear upon him. That

would be just as bad, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, as membership of the Mining Association. We say that, on the right hon. Gentleman's argument, he ought to alter this paragraph so as to make it impossible for anyone to retain membership of any association of any sort which is connected in any way with the industry. If he wants to be so foolish as to deprive himself of one of the main values of the Commissioners because he refuses to let them continue to associate in a professional body from which they get most of their technical information, then let him do it.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Alan Anderson: What I think is wanted here, in order to avoid bias on the part of a member of the Commission, is that he should have no personal interest of a pecuniary nature which could make him suspect. I do not think the question whether he is a member of an organisation has anything to do with that. It would be very easy for a man to give up his membership and still remain biased.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not expect that I shall have one of these jobs, and therefore I think I can speak on this question without bias, but since coming into this House I have kept up several of my connections. I am still a member of the Yorkshire Miners' Association and also of other organisations connected with the pit in which I worked for so many years. If this Amendment is not carried, I take it that I should have to sever every connection if I were to be appointed a member of the Commission. I would point out that when a member of the Yorkshire Miners' Association has paid for a certain number of years, he gets a pension, and it would be serious for him, therefore, to have to sever his connection entirely with what is his very blood and bones and part and parcel of him. This provision means that a man would have to separate from the West Riding Permanent Relief Association also, because that is an organisation of miners inside the Yorkshire Miners' Association area. If a chap gets this job, he has got to clear out from all his life's connections. I suppose the President of the Board of Trade has not seen that point before, and I hope that, now that


the ordinary working man s point of view has been put to him, he will see the force of the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith).

4.40 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: This provision means' that a man ought to divest himself entirely of any industrial or political association before becoming a member of this Commission, though the assumption that by divesting himself of such membership a man becomes impartial is all nonsense. Partisanship derives clearly from other influences and not from membership of a trade or professional association of this kind. There would be some point in it if the members of the Commission were nominated as representing a trade union or a mining association, but they are not to be representative; they are to be appointed by the Board of Trade out of such members. The organisation, therefore, will have no control over them either nominally or actually, and there is no reason why they should not retain membership. That civil servants or quasi-civil servants of this sort ought to be regarded as social eunuchs is something that we should deplore. I must say that this puritanical attitude of the Minister's in this regard compares very queerly with the attitude of the Minister in some other parts of these Schedules. Here you have all the outward seeming of complete purity, whereas in other parts of the Schedules the right hon. Gentleman has, I am afraid blotted his copybook most remarkably, and even blacked it. It is rather stupid, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have a little more flexibility and to accept Amendments which are obviously designed to improve the Bill. I am not sure that I ought not to accuse him of verbal hypocrisy.

4.43 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I am inclined to support the Amendment and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider his decision on this point. I do not think that, because a man was a member of a trade union, the owners would necessarily think him suspect. It is an absolute fact, as has been stated by one hon. Member, that those who join trade unions do it, not entirely from a business point of view. I know many cases where men have left a pit and have still kept up membership of their trade

union for various reasons, such as have been mentioned in the Debate. You are asking more of a man in asking him to give up his trade union membership than you are asking of a man who happens to be on the Mining Association to give up his membership of that association, and I think that if the Schedule were so worded as not to entail a man's giving up his membership in a trade union, it would be very helpful.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had occasion before to draw attention to the fact, which is not generally recognised in this House, that the whole tendency in connection with the Civil Service or employment by the Government is to lay it down that under no circumstances can a member of the working class hold any responsible position in the State or occupy a position in any responsible body. That is the whole concern and method of carrying forward the work of the National Government, to make it absolutely impossible for a working man—

The Chairman: If the hon. Member develops that point, he will be out of order on this Amendment. There is no bar to the appointment of a member of a union to the Commission, but if a member of a trade union is appointed, he must give up his membership of the union.

Sir S. Cripps: It is provided that a person shall be disqualified for being appointed a member of the Commission as long as he is a member of his trade organisation. If he continued to be a member he could not be appointed.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is right in that assumption. If he were likely to be appointed he would have to give up his membership of the organisation. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has raised a point with regard to the Civil Service generally, which we cannot obviously discuss.

Mr. Gallacher: My point is that while a man may originally have been a member of the working class or a member of a working-class organisation, in order to sit on this Commission he must sever his connection with the working-class organisation and ipso facto with the working class. There is nothing to prevent him but everything to induce him to become a member of some highly


respectable and reputable or disreputable Conservative Club. On this side of the House we ought to insist that this practice be stopped, and that it should be laid down emphatically that a man can still remain a member of a working-class organisation and a member of the working class and yet give service to the State. The presumption, on the other side—and it is inherent in this Schedule—is that no man from the working class should be brought into public service unless he becomes absorbed into the class that is represented by the other side of the House. That is an insult to the working class, and we ought not to tolerate it. We have a right to insist that this deliberate insult to the working class should be removed.
If a member of the Mining Association goes on to the Commission, he will still remain a coalowner, and if he were biased before he went on the Commission he will not cease to be biased when he goes on. That does not in any way affect his position as a coalowner. He remains a coalowner, and continues to be associated with the same people with whom he has always been associated. He absorbs the prejudices of the people with whom he has been associated, but if a working-class representative goes on to the Commission, then he must cut himself away entirely from his old associations and try to get a new association. I insist that this process of corruption be ended, and that if a man is capable of sitting on a body of this sort he ought to be able to retain his membership of, and association with, the working class.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I should like to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. He has all the safeguards that he needs. He will make the appointment and will have satisfied himself of the man's impartiality before he makes the appointment. Under the Schedule he will say to the man: "I consider you a fit and proper persons to serve on the Commission, but I understand that you are a member of a trade union connected with the mining industry. Before I appoint you, I must, under the Act of Parliament, ask you whether you are willing to resign your membership." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will gain much by that. If the man is a coalowner and he remains a member of

the Mining Association, it may be said that the miners will be suspicious, and if the man is a member of a miners' organisation, then it may be said the coal-owners will be suspicious. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman brings in this provision in order to remove that possibility of suspicion. If he thinks a man is a fit and proper person and he is satisfied as to his impartial approach to any question which may come before the Commission, he Ought to be able to accept our Amendment. He may pick out five men and then find that one is a member of the Mining Association or of the miners' organisation. Why should he then say: "I am sorry, but I cannot appoint you unless you resign your membership. You may continue to have your sympathies, but if you do not resign your membership I cannot appoint you." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that really there is no need for him to resist the Amendment in order to attain what he wants.

4.51 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: As a supporter of the President of the Board of Trade I should like to make an appeal to him. In my view it is not necessary to insist upon this condition. I think the point is amply covered in the subsequent paragraphs, which provide that a member of the Commission shall not have any financial interest in the coal industry, so that he will not be biased by financial considerations in any discussions. I know something about the mining industry, as I do of other trades. When a man has spent from 10 up to 40 years in a particular trade or profession it becomes part of him and he cannot eliminate that fact, whether he is a member of a trade union or not. He ought to be able to retain his membership of such an organisation after appointment to the Commission, provided that he takes no active connection with the organisation, as is provided for in the subsequent words of the paragraph.
Where is the right hon. Gentleman going to get his Commission except from experts who have devoted their lives to this particular business, either on one side or the other? If it is feared that a man would be biased because of his former connections, we might well bear in mind the old saying that the best gamekeeper is the former poacher. My experience is


that the more employers and employés come in contact with each other and the more they see of the other point of view the more rational and sane are they in their judgments. I have known scores of trade union officials who have been accused in later life of selling themselves to their bosses because they have come to see the employers' point of view. Frequently the same thing happens in regard to employers who when they have had the employés point of view placed before them by a hard headed trade union official, see that there is something to be said on the employés side. I appeal to the Minister, because I think he is well covered by the subsequent paragraphs. These men ought to be able to retain their membership of their organisations after having perhaps paid their subscriptions for a long number of years. Why should they have to resign and lose benefits for perhaps a temporary appointment? It would be a hardship to ask any man to conform to the Act if the Schedule is passed in its present form.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I should like to reinforce the observations made relevant to a man being permitted to retain his trade union membership. I would quote the case of the right hon. George Nicoll Barnes, who at one time was the general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. He entered this House and became a Member of the War Cabinet, a very important office, and one in which prejudice might have entered. There was no suggestion that he must abandon his trade union membership. He is at the present time a member of the Committee which deals with recommendations for political and other honours. Surely that is an office into which prejudice might enter if a person was in any sense prejudiced by his trade union membership. Mr. Barnes retains his membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and is a regular contributor to the Amalgamated Engineers' Monthly Journal. In connection with the Governments of which Mr. Barnes was a member, both national and otherwise, no one would assert at any time that by virtue of his trade union membership he was ever a prejudiced person. It is now proposed to ask a person to relinquish what he has built up in his association. He ought not to be asked to abandon that because he

is entering into what may be only a temporary appointment.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I belong to a trade union whose rules provide that where a man starts business on his own account he does not need to relinquish his provident membership of his union. He retains the right to be a provident member of the union but he has no voice in its management. A man may have been a member of his union for 20 or 30 years, insured for provident, sickness, unemployment and death benefits. Is he to throw all that up because he gets a job as a member of the proposed Commission? I hope the Minister will consider the argument which as been put forward and will accept the Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I should like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude towards the Amendment. On the question of possible partiality, the danger is fully covered by the later wording of the Schedule. I cannot help thinking that by resisting the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is, quite unintentionally, legislating in a way which suggests some discrimination against members of trade unions who may be considered suitable for appointment to the Commission. Quite apart from the political or professional aspect of the matter, there is a most important social aspect of that membership, and it seems to me that asking a trade unionist to abandon membership of his union is almost parallel to asking a person to abandon his life insurance policy, to which he has been subscribing all his life. That has nothing whatever to do with his fitness or unfitness for membership of this Commission. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has no such discrimination in mind. I was nearly dissuaded from rising to ask him to reconsider the matter, by the speech made by the Communist Member of the House. His suggestion that an insult to the working classes is intended in this Schedule, is ridiculous. If there is any discrimination, I am certain that it is absolutely unintentional. I, therefore, beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am not sure that the point has been really dealt with, because although we may assume that a man who


was a member of his trade union might not take any active part in it, there is no way of ensuring that if he remains a member of his trade union, he will not take some part?

Sir S. Cripps: He is disqualified if he is
in any other manner directly connected with that industry.

Mr. Stanley: There is, for instance, nothing to prevent him from going to the Trades Union Congress, which, I think, would be undesirable.

Sir S. Cripps: If it is undesirable that he should go to the Trades Union Congress, is it not also undesirable that he should go to the Federation of British Industries? Surely, no Commissioner on the employers' side would be stopped from attending the Federation of British Industries if he wished to do so, and why should any member be stopped from attending the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Stanley: I mean, as an active member. Several hon. Members, however, have made a point in which there is some substance. It refers to what may be described as side-lines of a trade union, such as provident societies or pension schemes, or matters of that kind, which do not involve active membership of a trade union but are ancillary to the trade union's work. It is suggested that a man might be deprived of some benefit for which he had paid for a considerable time, if this disqualification applied in such cases. I shall certainly look into that matter and see whether it is possible that a man who is a member of the Commission should be able to remain a member of a body of that kind.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to meet our point. We are concerned about the member of the Commission retaining his membership of an industrial organisation in his area, but that is not the primary point. The primary point is that he should be allowed to retain membership of a trade union organisation or an employers' organisation as the case may be. If the right hon. Gentleman is troubled about any activities on the part of a member of a trade union or of an employers' organisation, who subsequently becomes a member of the Commission, I suggest that he should on the Report stage insert the word

"active" before the word "member." I think that would provide a sufficient safeguard. It would ensure that no person who was a member of the Commission would take an active part in the affairs of his organisation, and that, I think, would be satisfactory. But if the right hon. Gentleman is adamant and refuses to give way on this question, we shall have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

5.4 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: Perhaps it would help to clear the atmosphere if we considered, in this connection, the analogy of a barrister. Suppose there was a Measure similar to this dealing with the legal profession. Would it be reasonable to ask a barrister to give up membership of his inn because he had been appointed a member of the appropriate Commission? We know that many members of that profession cease to practice but remain members of the Bar, and surely a trade unionist in this case should be able to remain a member of his trade union without being an active servant of the union or carrying on work as its agent. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman would bear that analogy in mind, it would help him to make a concession which is obviously desired by the Committee.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Membership of this Commission will not, of necessity, be a life job. A man at some time or other might be forced to give up membership of the Commission. If he has broken his trade union connection, he is in a hopeless situation in that event. He cannot get back into the union until he has got a job, and he cannot get a job until he has got back into the union. Precautions could be taken to ensure that a member of the Commission did not actively participate in the work of a trade or other organisation. If a member was attending to his duties at the Commission, he could hardly go to the Trades Union Congress, and in any case he would not be appointed a delegate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 120.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[5.6 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gluckstein, L. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Amery, RI. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Radford, E. A.


Apsley, Lord
Granvils E. L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Assheton, R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rankin, Sir R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Haeking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sandys, E. D.


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Savery, Sir Servington


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter, T.
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lewis, O.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dawson, Sir P.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Touche, G. C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McKie, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Doland, G. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Turton, R. H.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Maonamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Magnay, T.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dunglass, Lord
Marsden, Commander A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emery, J. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wise, A. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Errington, E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wragg, H.


Everard, W. L.
Peake, O.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peat, C. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Mr. Cross and Sir James




Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cocks, F. S.
Gardner, B. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cove, W. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Banfield, J. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Barr, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Batey, J.
Dobbie, W.
Grenfell, D. R


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Bevan, A.
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Buchanan, G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Groves, T. E.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Cape, T.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Chater, D.
Frankel, D.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Gallacher, W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)







Hayday, A.
Marshall, F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Hills, A. (Pontetract)
Montague, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stephen, C.


Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)




Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Muff, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Thome, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, J
Thurtle, E.


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.
Tomlinson, G.


Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Lansbury. Rt. Hon. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, A. G.


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Walker, J.


Lawson, J. J.
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Leach, W.
Roberts, RI. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Westwood, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Logan, D. G.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lunn, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Sexton, T. M.



Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Mander, G. le M.
Simpson, F. B.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 45, line 25, to leave out "two," and to insert "three."
This is a very important Amendment. The Commission is to consist of a chairman and four members, and it is laid down here that a quorum of the Commission shall be not less than two members. The Amendment proposes that the number should be three. The task which lies before this Commission in the new venture which is about to be undertaken is a tremendous one. It might be described as unparalled. The Commission is to be responsible for property of the value of £66,000,000 which is reverting back to the nation, and while it is true that they are not to engage in the business of coal-mining or carry or any operations for coal-mining purposes, they have duties of a very far-reaching and important nature. They are charged with controlling and managing the premises acquired by them under the Act and granting coal-mining leases, and in the discharge of those duties, decisions of the first importance will have to be taken by them. They will be decisions which will have a far-reaching effect on the attitude of the people of this country because of the venture which we are now undertaking in nationalising the mining royalties of the country.
What a tragedy it will be, as we witness private enterprise breaking down here and there, for it to come to the Government for some assistance to help them over the period. We visualise that as the days go by private enterprise will continue to reel and stagger until it

collapses. I should think that tremendous pressure would be brought to bear upon this Commission. Certain predilections and prejudices will be brought to bear upon them. This is the second Bill that has been before this House dealing with amalgamations in the coal industry, and we have witnessed what pressure can do. We have seen a Government with a majority like the National Government brought to their knees by pressure. When Mr. Runciman was President of the Board of Trade—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): We are only discussing the question of a quorum of the Commission, and the arguments of the hon. Member are much too wide to put to the Committee on that point.

Sir S. Cripps: The question is whether two. is a sufficient number for a quorum of the Commission, and, surely, that is a very material point of issue.

The Temporary-Chairman: Such matters can be referred to but not argued and elaborated to the extent that the hon. Member was doing.

Mr. Taylor: I would not have gone to the length I have, but I have noticed that none of us on this side of the Committee has yet talked long enough to accomplish our object. This will cripple and vitiate my argument. I wish to show that it is most undesirable to have this Commission bowled over and controlled in a dictatorial way. That is my argument. A week ago we saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade making an absolutely abject surrender, because


the coal interests in this country, according to the Press, have been having dinners and banquets and all that sort of thing to influence people to bring pressure on the Secretary for Mines. Instead of a quorum of not less than two, we want a quorum of not less than three. I think that that is a fair proportion in view of the enormity of the task of this Commission and of our desire that they should be launched on an even keel and given fair weather and a prospect of accomplishing their task. To do that it is necessary that the Commission should be properly manned and that there should be a sufficient number on deck when decisions have to be taken.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I have before in the course of Debates used the formula, "I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's object, but I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment." In this case I have no sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's object, but I am going to accept his Amendment. Frankly, the reason why I do so is that, if there should be pressure from one side or another, the Commission, with the idea that three will be at a meeting instead of two, will be better able to resist it. My only object in accepting it is that I agree that times may arise when very important decisions of principle will have to be taken by the Commission, the members of which will be carefully picked to represent varying interests, and I think it is right that a quorum should be a majority of members, and the Amendment substituting three for two will mean that a majority of members will always be present.

5.22 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I must signalise this event, because it is the first of its kind.

Mr. Stanley: No.

Sir S. Cripps: The first substantially of its kind. The last occasion was so long ago as to be almost forgotten by everybody. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. As I understand it, the chairman will have, in fact, the casting vote, but it does not say so. Curiously enough, although in other parts of the Bill, chairmen are given casting votes, in paragraph (13) of the Schedule the Commission have power to regulate their own procedure except as laid down in

the Schedule, and it will give the chairman the casting vote. You could not have a quorum of two and a chairman with a casting vote, or it might mean that the chairman as a single person would have the decision. Something should be said as to whether the chairman has a casting vote of not.

Mr. Stanley: It is certainly my intention that he should have a casting vote, and I will look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions for defining property and rights with which, and matters subject to which coal is to be acquired.)

Amendment made: In page 46, line 10, leave out "for value."—[Captain Crookshank.]

5.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 46, line 33, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The Amendment is really moved largely for the purpose of obtaining information. The paragraph deals with the question of easements to which mines are subservient and with the question of whether these easements are to be extinguished or are to remain in existence. It is quite a common factor that there has been in the past a number of such easements which have not, in fact, been operative. They have been granted between the owners of a house and a mine perhaps more or less by way of nominal protection, and, as long as the ownership remains related between one and the other, they do not affect anybody, and nobody takes any serious notice of them. If the ownership becomes separate and the Commission come in and get the ownership of the mineral royalties, many of these might be very rigidly enforced as a method of trying to extract money or commodities of one kind or another out of the Commission. In other words, a change of circumstances brought about by putting the ownership of coal into the hands of the Commission may bring about a very different set of circumstances as regards the degree to which people insist upon this kind of rights. In these circumstances, there ought to be some provision by which some of these rights can be extinguished


on payment or in other ways at the time when the Commission take over. We are afraid that if that is not done this is what will happen to the Commission. I will not use the word "blackmail," but extravagant demands will be made which really lack reality because they are not demands which will ever be made. Though technically and legally they are entitled to be made, they would only be made in the ordinary course of events if there were some connection between the owner of the one and the owner of the other.
It really comes to this, that people are always prepared to do down a Government Department or a big corporation, whereas, in the ordinary friendly intercourse of neighbours in the countryside they would not do this sort of thing. We are afraid that some of these rights will be utilised for that purpose, and that the Commission will become the fair game of anybody who has a right of this sort and wishes to use it to squeeze the Commission. It is a very difficult point which cannot really be dealt with by the omission of this paragraph. The Amendment is only put down in order to raise the point, but we want to know whether the point has been carefully considered and whether there is not some form of protection that might be introduced. Certain rights of this sort might be wiped out on payment of compensation or something of that kind, and if the matter has not been considered, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it between now and the Report stage and to let us know the result of his consideration.

5.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): This paragraph is intended to deal with the case in which a person has an ownership or interest in coal and also owns other land which is enjoying some benefit under a covenant servitude adverse to the coal. Let me give an example of the sort of case I have in mind. Suppose an owner has leased his coal to a colliery company and has adjoining that coal clay or other minerals not covered by the coal-mining lease, which he is working himself or is having worked under a different lease. He may have under the coal-mining lease reserved a right of access to the clay through the coal mine. Any restrictive covenants of that kind are, of course, reflected in the

royalties on which compensation will be paid, and there is no intention in a case of that kind of wiping out any such right. Those are the cases that we have in mind, which the Schedule is intended to cover. I have no information as to the likelihood of the sort of things which the hon. and learned Member suggests, but I am obliged to him, and I will certainly have inquiries made as to whether some further provision ought to be made. I should point out that if any of these rights under discussion should in the future unduly impede the working of coal now being worked, or which may be worked in the future, an application under the Mines (Working Facilities) Act would enable them to be overridden on such terms as the court might think fit. If they should become a real hindrance to the future working of coal, my view is that an application under the Mines (Working Facilities) Act would enable them to be overruled, but I will certainly consider what the hon. and learned Member has said.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.33 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 46, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(4) In a case in which any of the conveying parties might, after the conveyance, be subject to any personal liability in respect of a restrictive covenant that adversely affects the coal or mine, the conveyance shall be deemed to contain a covenant entered into by the Commission with that party with the object and intent of affording to him and his successors in title a full and sufficient indemnity, but not further or otherwise, that the Commission will at all times after the vesting date duly perform and observe that restrictive covenant in relation to the coal or mine and will at all times keep that party and his successors in title effectually indemnified against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, claims, and demands whatsoever in respect of that restrictive covenant.
This Amendment relates to a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on Clause 3. He put before us the case of a coalowner who, on the transfer of his coal to the Commission, might find himself later on possibly liable to an action under some covenant which he had entered into relating to the coal which he had parted with, and the hon. and learned Member suggested that he should have an indemnity. The Clause provides for an indemnity of


a more restricted kind than asked for by the hon. and learned Member. It provides for an indemnity in the case of a restrictive covenant, which are the only covenants which normally run with the land and pass from person to person as the land passes. In our view this should be restricted, as if you extend it to personal obligations, it is rather difficult to say where you should stop, and we do not think it could be justified in principle.

Amendment agreed to.

5.34 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 47, line 3, after "request," to insert "or on giving some notice."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Sir S. Cripps: Is the hon. and gallant Member quite correct? As I read the Schedule
a person having an interest vested in him without power to convey it, or having power to convey an interest with or on some consent, approval or request, shall be deemed … to have had that power or to have received that consent, approval or request.
Now it is proposed to add the words "or on giving some notice." I do not quite understand the meaning of the words. He is to have "some consent, approval, or request"—I can understand that—but why as an alternative there is going to be "some notice," I do not understand. The receipt of some notice I can understand, but I do not know what it means by giving some notice. At the moment it is nonsense, but I may be completely mistaken.

5.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I will look at the point raised. The sort of case which the paragraph is intended to cover is the case of a person of unsound mind who cannot in law make a conveyance except with the sanction of the court or a charily which might have to obtain the sanction of the Charity Commissioners. These words are only to get the consent of the court which may be necessary to give notice. In some cases a corporation may have to give notice. I think it is in accordance with the general tenour of the Clause. It is to deal with cases where something has to be done by giving some notice before a conveyance takes place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 5, after "request," insert "or to have given that notice."—[Captain Crookshank.]

The Temporary Chairman: I propose to call the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), in line 41, to leave out the words "to make good, or", and the hon. and learned Member's two further Amendments to the Schedule, so that the Committee can discuss them together.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 47, line 41, to leave out "to make good, or".
This is the first of my Amendments dealing with the provisions for compensation for subsidence, a vitally important matter to everybody concerned. A provision has crept into modern mining leases giving an alternative to the person who causes the subsidence to making good the damage by paying monetary compensation. I want respectfully to suggest that any right on the part of the Commission to make good the damage except by a monetary compensation raises, as it always raises under these leases, one of the most contentious questions that anyone can come across. The right to make good except by money compensation means that a surveyor comes along and says that they have made good the subsidence. Of course, the occupier or owner, as far as my experience goes, always says that the so-called making good is only a makeshift operation and that it is utterly and entirely unsatisfactory. A wrangle begins at once between the owner or occupier of the house and the mine as regards this so-called substitute for a money payment. I suggest that when we are dealing with the Commission it is undesirable that there should be any alternative to the simple one of making a proper money compensation payment for damage caused by subsidence.
The provisions for the money compensation appear to me to be unduly complicated and difficult. In the first place they are divided into two in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), but later on in the Schedule you find a limitation even on the compensation given under these two subparagraphs. The effect is that when the Commission have determined to work


coal, they can give public notice of their intention, and thereafter the person who suffers from subsidence will not get compensation unless in putting up his building he has used reasonable and proper precautions in making the design and in the construction of his building or works. What will be regarded as reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of a building? It is just throwing into the lap of the lawyers as good a bone of contention as could possibly have been devised. Whenever a subsidence occurs after such a public notice, the Commission will no doubt always claim that proper precautions in design and construction have not been taken, and the owner of the building will, of course, say that he took proper precautions, and you will have a wrangle, years after a building has been erected as to whether or not it was erected with reasonable and proper precautions in design and construction. Therefore, I deprecate the complication of these compensation provisions. In my second Amendment, I suggest that we should reduce the provision to the simple proposition of proper money compensation for subsidence, letting the ordinary course follow from that, so that a claim would be made and, if it was not agreed, the matter would go to the courts, which would deal with the case and fix the sum to be paid, and so the matter would be finished.

The third Amendment involves a substantial change in the law, and it is an Amendment which I put forward with considerable diffidence. I want the Committee seriously to consider whether the fact that the Commission will become the owner of all the coal in the country does not give us an opportunity to get over one of the practical difficulties in very many cases when a person has a claim for compensation for subsidence. My Amendment would not give any additional right to claim for subsidence, but would get over the practical difficulty which so often exists, particularly where there is very deep working, in cases where subsidence takes place and the owner of the building on the surface knows that some one is responsible for it, but has not the slightest idea which it may be of two or three, or possibly more, working companies.

In many cases in recent years an individual making a claim has had to start by joining as defendants two or three

different mining companies, not knowing which was, in fact, responsible, and it has only been at a later stage in the action, after discovery, when the plans and so forth have been disclosed, that he has known which was the company responsible for the subsidence and has continued the action against that one alone, in the meantime having been involved in very substantial costs before having got to that stage. The Amendment would bring about a very substantial change in the law, so that any person having a claim for compensation for subsidence would hereafter be allowed, in the first instance, to make the Commission the defendant to his action and to bring the claim against the Commission.

The Commission will be the one body in the country which will have the information at its disposal and will be able to know who is the responsible person. It will be able to bring that body in under the ordinary procedure as a third party, and in its turn will be able to recover from the person responsible. That is the idea behind the third Amendment. I take no pride in its drafting, but I hope the Committee will consider it seriously, because I believe it would bring about a most beneficial change in our procedure. To sum up, the Amendments raise three points: First, whether it is wise to allow the Commission to have the right to make good the damage; secondly, whether we ought not to have, in preference to the somewhat complicated provisions in the Schedule, a simple provision for money compensation; and, thirdly, whether it would not be desirable to make a change in our law which would allow the right of action in the first instance to be against the Commission, the Commission to bring into the proceedings the parties who are in fact responsible for the subsidence.

5.50 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is delightful to find the hon. and learned Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Spens) for once on the side of the Labour party. He has advocated admirably what we have been advocating in vain for so long, namely, that there should be a certain element of justice in this Bill for the people who suffer from mining subsidence. On the first two Amendments we entirely support the hon. and learned Member. As to the third Amendment, we should be more


inclined to support it if the hon. and learned Member had indicated in the Amendment or in his speech any method whereby the Commission could recover from the people against whom the claim is at present made.

Mr. Spens: Although it is not in the Amendment, I think I said that under the ordinary procedure the action would be started against the Commission, and the Commission would be able to bring in as a third party, and so recover from it, the mining company responsible. That is rather a technical question of procedure. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) may not agree with me, and may feel that some words ought to be added in order to make that clear.

Colonel Wedgwood: Not being a lawyer, it is difficult for me to follow the method, but it is obvious that the Commission ought not to be in a worse position than it otherwise would be owing to the faults of a third party. I am very anxious that the Government should make some sort of concession on the first two Amendments. The first Amendment is to stop people who are liable from patching up houses and churches and then thinking that they have done their duty. Patching up is all very well, but what does it amount to? It means that the cracks are cemented up and that on the front and sides of the house gigantic scars are left. The very fact that there is a scar on a building detracts from the value of the property for all time. The patching up may be successful for the time being, but it is a warning that further patching up and litigation may be necessary later on, and anybody wanting to buy the property will naturally offer a much lower price for it. The value of the property is destroyed, although it may have been made good according to the standards of the colliery company at the time.
There is a special example of this in Stoke-on-Trent. It so happens that there is a certain part of Burslem which is freehold property. The church and a considerable area—I would not like to say how many hundreds of acres—are all small freeholds, owned by the owners of the surface, and those places, in spite of the fact that the people own the minerals immediately below them, are continually being let down and injured. Up to now,

there has not been compensation, but the damage has been made good. In the churchyard, all the tombs of my ancestors would have vanished underground long ago if the family had not made them good. As far as the Church fabric is concerned, the colliery company has helped. In the case of the houses of these freeholders, sitting on their own minerals, there has been help from the company to make them good; but that has not in the least prevented the value of the property from being utterly ruined by the working of a neighbouring colliery, owing to the spread in the depression, when these very deep areas are mined, affecting all these properties.
These people have a claim. Is the extent of their compensation to be cement pumped into the walls or a new patch put on, or are they to get real compensation for the loss they have suffered owing not only to circumstances beyond their control, but to the working of somebody else's pit on somebody else's land? I have an Amendment on the Paper later on which seeks to insert the word "loss" instead of having only the word "damages." On the main principle however, that we should no longer have property made good, but should have real damages representing the loss on the property, we entirely agree. The same principle, of course, would apply to local authorities, and they would be able to get damages, instead of merely getting a mended sewer or a supported school. I am not certain that all the loss would be included in the words:
proper compensation for damage due to the letting down of the surface of that land and buildings, works, drains, pipes, ditches, fences, trees, crops, cattle, or other things for the time being thereon or thereunder.
In the case of a factory, there may be losses and damages which go beyond those specified in the Amendment, and there is always the danger that if one specifies the particulars of any damage, one thereby rules out everything not mentioned in those particulars. We ought to make quite certain that where heavy machinery is thrown out of operation, where factories are damaged or departments have to be closed down, there should be compensation, not merely for making good what has happened, but for loss of time and for the possibility in future of not being able to have the foundations for heavy machinery.
However, these Amendments are a step in the right direction. I hope we may have the further support of the hon. and learned Gentleman for Ashford when we demand plans of underground workings for the people who suffer damage. The hon. and learned Member did not support us on Tuesday last when we asked that local authorities should be able to see plans so that they might know against whom they should proceed. When it comes to the small owner, it is infinitely more urgent that he should have the plans, because the small property owner is more likely to suffer from mining in the neighbourhood, and he would be in a much better position in regard to getting compensation if he knew against whom he should bring an action. No doubt that matter will be raised on a later Amendment, and I hope all those hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who, in the interests of honest British property, are standing up for the rights of honest British property owners, will give their support for the small man exactly on the same lines as we are now helping them to get what we consider to De just compensation for all.

6.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The Amendments, as my hon. and learned Friend said, raise three points, although the third one falls under a rather different category from the other two. When we are dealing with paragraph 6 of Part II of the Second Schedule, with which these Amendments deal, it is right that we should remind ourselves of the background of this paragraph. Paragraph 5 deals with all cases in which there at present exists some definite terms with regard to the right to withdraw support. There then arises the problem as to what rights to withdraw support should pass to the Commission in respect of coal which at present is being worked by a freeholder who is owner of both coal and surface and also in respect of future coal at present not worked. Obviously, if the Commission got no right to withdraw support they would be getting something worth very much less than if they got coal with the normal right to withdraw support subject to the ordinary conditions.
Therefore, this problem had to be considered in the valuation of the global sum which was ascertained by the tribunal.

The principle adopted was the natural and obvious one that in so far as future coal is concerned or coal in respect of, which, though being worked, there is no' right to withdraw support, it should be specified that coal should pass to the Commission with the normal ordinary right to withdraw support. That was the basis of the valuation, and the compensation which the Commission will be paying will be based on the fact that in respect of that coal they will get the ordinary right to withdraw support, subject to ordinary and normal conditions. If they are given more than that they will be given something which they have not paid for. If they are given less and if this paragraph is amended so as to give them less than the ordinary normal rights to withdraw support, they will be paying for something and not getting it, because the money which is to go to the present coalowners is based on the assumption that when they transfer their coal to the Commission they will transfer the normal rights to withdraw support which they would be expected to give assuming they started working their coal.

Colonel Wedgwood: I must have this quite clear. At present they have, I suppose, the right to withdraw support from minerals which they have bought on those principles, but when you have neighbouring land being compensated by these companies, are not the Government going to apply the liability to support to people on neighbouring land? It is a principle which has been recognised, in fact if not in law, by the colliery companies whose properties they are taking over.

The Attorney-General: Paragraph 5 deals with all cases in which the owner of the surface and the person working the coal are different, and in that case the right to withdraw support is already provided for in the lease. Nobody asks to be allowed to work coal under a lease unless he has a right to withdraw support under conditions. All the cases in which there is a difference between the owner of the surface and the worker of the coal have been dealt with in paragraph 5 and do not arise in this discussion. Paragraph 6 deals with cases in which the fee simple, the ownership in the coal or mine, is in the same person as that of the surface and there is no mining lease existing. That is to say, it deals with two cases.


It deals with the case in which a freeholder is at present working his own mine; and with the case of coal which has so far not been worked, the coal and surface being in the same ownership.
The problem was on what terms were we to pay compensation in respect of the coal in those two categories passing to the Commission. If you assume that the Commission got no right to withdraw support at all, the sum of course would not be a large one. If, on the other hand, you assume that they could withdraw support and not pay for any damage, then they would be getting something much more valuable than is normally transferred. The problem which had to be settled was as to what right to withdraw support was to be deemed to pass to the Commission in cases where there was no existing provision in lease or deed providing for it. The principle adopted, which the Committee will realise was the only principle which could be adopted in fairness, was to assume that the Commission would get the ordinary and usual rights to withdraw support on the ordinary conditions. There are a great variety of conditions made in different leases and different deeds.
We came to the conclusion that the words in the Schedule set out, as near as we could get them, the usual terms on which the right to work coal is given. My hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite raised the point about "making good." They want to lay it down that the person owning the property should claim damages in money if he liked, and that the making good should only be at the request of the person whose property was injured. My information is that this right to make good is a usual incident in bargains of this kind. There are no doubt many occasions when it cannot be done. There are special works where obviously you have to go to an outside person and the mineral worker is unable to do it himself. According to my information the mineral workers in most cases stipulate for this right; it is not a new thing. One can see that in many cases it is reasonable and fair. There must be many jobs which the mineral workers can do themselves and do just as well, as far as the damage is concerned, as anybody else. It is not, therefore, an unfair stipulation. My hon.

and learned Friend says there has been great trouble about it in the past. There may be less trouble in future for the very reason that this will be a right vested in the Commission, who will, no doubt, be criticised and expostulated with if their lessees abuse a right, which the Commission will no doubt confer on them, of making good the damage instead of paying compensation. I suggest that if I am right in saying that this is a usual provision and in suggesting that the very existence of the Commission may make it less liable to abuse in future than it has been in the past—if it has been abused—then the Committee may think that it is a perfectly reasonable provision.
Coming to the second part of the question, my hon. and learned Friend objects to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, namely, that the obligation to make good or to pay in the case of houses or buildings set up after notice that the coal is to be worked, shall be limited to cases in which proper precautions in design and construction have been taken. My hon. and learned Friend took a very low view of human nature and of the Commission when he assumed that the Commission would always say, "You did not take proper precautions," and the man would always reply that he did. I do not take the gloomy view of the reasonableness of the Commission and the general intelligence of the people who set up buildings after notice. This refers to proper precautions as to design and construction.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does it mean there must be a cement float to every house?

The Attorney-General: I cannot state the technical processes which would fall under these words, but the best the Bill can do is to choose appropriate words to express its intention, leaving particular cases necessarily to be settled afterwards. The words are:
Reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of the buildings.
It may well be that if you are setting up a building to cost £1,000,000, precautions would be reasonable which would be wholly unreasonable in the case of a small building.

Colonel Wedgwood: These are cases in which men own the surface. You are taking their minerals away from them.


You are paying them £70 an acre for minerals, but if they use that land for building purposes you are putting upon them the obligation to put cement floats under each house, running them into an expenditure of, perhaps, £200 or £300 an acre. Surely there must come a point when it is not worth while for the State to buy the minerals. If the minerals are only worth £70 an acre and for building purposes the land is worth £700 an acre, surely you do not propose to force the owner of the land to lose all the value in his property.

The Temporary Chairman: That point comes under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman—in page 48, line 8, after the second "to," to insert "loss or."

The Attorney-General: The answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is to be found in sub-paragraph (3) in page 48 of the Bill. He was dealing with a case where there are existing buildings on the land of such a value as it would be unreasonable to damage, and there is an express provision in sub-paragraph (3) dealing with that point. I thought we were discussing an objection to the provisions by which, after notice was given, damage was not paid for unless proper precautions were taken, because that was discussed as the second point.

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment dealing with that is the Amendment to which I have referred—in page 48, line 8, after the second "to," insert "loss or."

Mr. Spens: My second Amendment moves out the words from "pay," to the end of sub-paragraph (2), and I was justifying the omission of sub-paragraph (2).

The Temporary Chairman: I beg your pardon.

The Attorney-General: I had just pointed out that there is a power in the owner of the surface to go to the Railway and Canal Commission and say, in effect, "The value of the existing building is far greater than the value of the coal, and the buildings should therefore be protected." One would assume also that the Commission themselves would exercise ordinary common sense in such a case. Coming back to the subject of the Amendment, the owner of the surface will get the value of his coal.

Colonel Wedgwood: He does not want it.

The Attorney-General: That is not the point which I am making. He is getting the value of the coal, and you cannot determine the value of unworked coal without coming to some decision as to what rights to withdraw support shall be taken with it. The point which arises under the second Amendment will surely be dealt with in this way: Notice is given that there are going to be workings. The surface owner, in spite of that, decides to build. There are reasonable and proper precautions which can be taken in the design and construction of what is going to be put up. It is perfectly easy for that matter to be dealt with at the time between the Commission and the colliery owner and the surface owner. The proper precautions could be agreed upon and there could be no question of an unseemly and profitless dispute arising in all cases at a later stage when damage occurs. On the general principle it seems to me right that those who put up buildings after notice that there are going to be workings should take reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of the buildings.
With regard to the third point, which is that if a surface owner believes he has a right of action and is not certain against whom that right of action lies, he should be able to proceed against the Commission and leave them to do what it has been suggested would be an almost impossible task, I cannot think that that course would be fair to the Commission. There might be a case in which it would be impossible to prove where the ultimate liability lay, and the Commission would be left with the liability and with no chance of recovering from anybody else. I can see the force of the suggestion that the Commission may have information which is valuable to someone who has a claim of this kind, and I am prepared to consider it from that point of view, and I think a later Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend is more directly concerned with that point. If it is not covered by what is done later, I shall be prepared to consider in relation to this problem the giving of some rights of claim to obtain information which may be in the possession of the Commission which would be material to deciding who has done the damage.

6.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not know whether the Attorney-General appreciates that in his last sentence he has entered upon dangerous ground. We had a long Debate the other day on the question of disclosing to other people plans which were in the possession of the Commission and access to such plans was refused. It must be obvious to anyone reading this Schedule that someone has to have access to the plans. How can a person carry out reasonable precautions if he does not know what is going to be done underneath the surface? I should like to warn hon. Members on this side of the House and in other parts of the House against the apparent plausibility of these Amendments. This is another ramp by the royalty owners, and nothing less. They do not touch any coal which is at present in lease. They concern only the case where the surface and the coal is at present in the possession of a royalty owner, who will have to sell the coal to the Commission. The coal will be bought on a certain basis, and now it is suggested that the basis will be altered so that the surface land may be much more valuable than it otherwise would be. The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but does he suggest that the alteration is not going to make the land more valuable?

Mr. Spens: I agree that it will make the procedure simpler, but that it will make the land more valuable I do not agree.

Sir S. Cripps: The fact that it does simplify the procedure means that it will make the land more valuable. If a man has a piece of land and the possibility of getting compensation for subsidence is likely to cost a lot of money, and take a lot of time, it will increase the value of the land to simplify that procedure. That is common sense. The whole object of this device is to increase the value of the land which is left in the hands of the royalty owners after they have sold their coal. If this proposal affected all people who have land over mines, as it does not, there might be a great deal to be said, even though the Commission have paid for the coal on a certain basis, for putting the extra expenditure upon the Commission, although the extra expense ought to be borne by the royalty owners and taken off the sum of £66,000,000

which they are getting; but for the sake of simplifying the procedure it might be well to risk the Commission having to spend more money.
If this proposal were to cover the cases we have in mind in which buildings are now erected over mines, we should be very glad to support it, even though it put an extra burden on the Commission, but what it is going to do is merely to give the royalty owners a better price for their land. Having sold their coal they are to have the opportunity of selling off building sites over the coal at a better price because they are better protected. Therefore, I do not think we ought to support these Amendments, because they do not achieve the substantial thing we should be glad to see, and that is protection given to the small man where buildings exist above mines at present. As regards the omission of sub-paragraph (2), that seems to be reasonable to a limited extent.
There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said about the illimitable discussion that may be raised in regard to reasonable and proper precautions. The Attorney-General said that this is a reasonable condition and that these reasonable people would be able to agree by correspondence beforehand as to what were proper precautions. Let me ask him a simple question. Suppose the Commission came to him, as a lawyer, and said: "Do you advise us to agree beforehand what are reasonable and proper precautions?" He would say: "That would be very unwise of you. You would be binding yourselves to all sorts of things. You do not know what may happen and you might let yourselves in for an enormous sum. You had better wait and see whether anything happens. If it does, then you have all sorts of defences that this was not proper, and the other was not proper, and this was not reasonable and the other was not reasonable." In those circumstances no one could possibly advise the Commission to commit itself in advance and to deprive itself of this protection.
On the other hand, I agree that it is very desirable that something of that sort should be done, and there should be some means. These plans all have to be submitted to a local authority, and local authorities in such areas are perfectly conversant with the difficulties. Why


should not a local authority be able to give a certificate that the plans incorporate reasonable and proper precautions? With that certificate the matter is decided. If you liked you could have a hearing before the local authority between the Commission and the building owner, if you thought it necessary or desirable, and if not, leave it to the local authority when it passes the plans to say: "In our opinion, knowing the circumstances of the district, we say that these plans incorporate reasonable and proper precautions." That is the only way of getting out of the difficulty.
It is reasonable to say that a person who has the notice should take reasonable and proper precautions, but I do not think it is right that the matter should be left without finality until years after the buildings were put up and when it is difficult to prove how the foundations were put in. You cannot prove it by the plan; you have to prove it by referring to the men who did the work. You have also to prove it by your concrete mixture, whether it was three and one or two and one, and whether it was reinforced and what the type of reinforcement was, and all sorts of things. You have to prove the facts perhaps 15 years after, when everyone who worked on the place is dead and gone. Why should the matter not be put into the hands of the local authority as one that had to be dealt with in mining districts when plans were submitted, and where notice had been given to the Commission by a building owner? It would get over the difficulty.
I must say that the third point, arising on the third Amendment, is a most amazing proposition. It will not relate merely to this class of land with which we have been dealing but to every mine in the country. It will be an insurance against those who unfortunately happen to be dealing with land which is underlaid by mines in the hands of bankrupt owners. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there is third-party procedure by which you can bring the owner in, but you do not get anything out of it. You pay first and then you get what you can. It is an impossible proposition. I agree that it would be a great convenience if everybody who had a claim for subsidence could go against the royalty owner, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will see where that leads us. The only solution is to make the nation

the coalowner as well as the royalty owner; then you would have your single owner. As one goes through this Bill, one sees clearly that a half measure of nationalisation is worse than a full measure, and perhaps worse than no measure at all.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Denman: Let me try to bring the Committee to a point upon which we can all agree instead of one which divides us so acutely. I think we all agree that the Commission deserves to have the rights for which it has paid. The point of the second Amendment is that we restore the essence of the original bargain. The Bill goes beyond the original bargain made with the Commission. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote one or two sentences from a letter that was put before the tribunal in which both parties agreed on certain points. It was stated clearly, on this matter of subsidence, that the global figure to be arrived at as a result of the determination of the tribunal was to be accepted by the Committee as covering, in addition to the fee simple of coal, the following rights, that is to say:
Such underground rights as are necessary for effectively getting coal, including the right to let down the surface, upon the following basis:
No. 1 is irrelevant and No. 2 is this:
In the case of mines of coal severed from the surface, on the basis of payment of reasonable compensation for damage due to letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon.
That is to say, the Commission bought its coal more cheaply by reason of the fact that it had laid upon it the obligation of compensation for damage through letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon.
When we come to the Bill, we are told that, after notice has been given, the surface owner must take reasonable and proper precautions, but those precautions may be exceedingly costly, so that the surface owner has not only a less amount for his coal because the liability for subsidence was left with the owners, but he has subsequently inflicted upon him this added charge for taking precautions, by way of cement floats and so on, against subsidence. This is a departure from the original terms of the bargain to the disadvantage of the surface owner and I suggest that in common fairness the Government ought to take that point back and look at it before the Report stage.

Mr. Bevan: How can the hon. Gentleman contend that the surface owner is in a worse position? He is in precisely the same position. If he parted with his rights to the mineowner to work the coal under his land and to let down the surface, he could not proceed against the mineowner then, any more than he can proceed against the Commission now. He is not in any worse position that he was before.

Mr. Denman: The Commission pays him only the amount of money that was due to their retaining the liability for any costs due to subsidence and letting down the surface. Therefore, the surface owner has a less amount than he would have got if the liability had been left with him.

6.40 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The obligation to make good and pay proper compensation is still here, and that is what we are talking about. What the royalty owner is presumed to have parted with is not compensation; he will get compensation on exactly the same basis as that on which he would have got it had he leased his coal by ordinary mining lease. Therefore this is taking the normal average circumstances under which a mineral owner would have leased his coal and saying: "We will incorporate these provisions." The surface owner will not get any more in future in the way of compensation from the Commission than before, but the hon. Gentleman wants him to get more.

Mr. Denman: This might have been the terms on which the valuation was made, but in fact the liability to make payment of reasonable compensation for damage, due to letting down the surface and buildings and works thereon, was left to the Commission.

Mr. Bevan: Surely the main obligation of the Commission to the mineral owner would be determined by the conditions of the lease under which the mineowner would work. He has had compensation for whatever rights he has parted with, but the hon. Gentleman wishes to give to the landowner a double compensation. Not only will the landlord have received his compensation from the Commission but the hon. Gentleman wishes to impose upon the Commission an obligation which was not imposed upon it by the owner

under the terms of the lease that the Commission bought.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Spens: May I explain what the real difference is? The royalty owners were paid a sum of money on the basis that ordinary reasonable compensation for letting down the surface was to be paid. It is for the Government to determine what reasonable and ordinary compensation should be paid, so they take a Clause out of one of the leases drafted in one of the most favourable ways for working leases for compensation, in order to work in the most favourable way in getting coal and to pay the smallest amount of compensation. We say that is incorporating a basis on which compensation was to be paid favourably to the Commission and unfairly to the surface owner. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) replies that my Amendments might go too far the other way and are unduly favourable to the surface owner. I venture to differ from him. I maintain that the provisions of the Schedule are not only complicated but are not a fair interpretation of the terms of the arbitration on which the global figure is based.

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to arbitrate between the rapacity of the owners and the honesty of the Government, I find it difficult.

6.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to repeat what I have said, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is wrong in thinking that there is any inconsistency between the words which he read out and the provisions of the Schedule. I said earlier that there are many varieties of existing contract. For some pits there are leases, for instance, under which the surface owner has undertaken not to put up any future buildings; after compensation for existing buildings no more buildings are to be put up. The question is whether that is a reasonable provision. I agree as to the desirability, if possible, of getting some sort of settlement of this matter when the expense is incurred and a house put up. There are, of course difficulties of proof, and so on. I cannot give a definite undertaking, but I will certainly consider whether it can be done through the local authority or in any


other way. I appreciate the force of the point, and will do my best to find a way of meeting it.

6.46 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think that a flagrant piece of injustice is going to be perpetrated in this regard. I do not usually appear at this Box or anywhere else in support of landlords, but here, I think, there are some landlords who have a really good case. If this Amendment were carried, it is perfectly clear that the value of that part of his land which remains in the private owner's possession would be higher than it will be if the Bill is passed in its present form, but it would not be higher than it would have been before the Bill was introduced. This Amendment deals solely with those cases where the owner of the surface and the owner of the minerals at present are one. The owner of the surface has hitherto refused to lease his minerals underground, because, if those minerals were worked, his property on top would lose more in value than he would gain from the royalties on the coal which he sold. Directly you get, on the surface, buildings of a greater value than the value of the coal below, it does not pay the owner to allow that coal to be mined and let his buildings drop. Under this Bill you are taking away from that man his prop, and are paying him for the prop the value of the coal, which, it is already agreed, is less than the value of his property on top. He does not want to part with the coal, but you are taking it in the public interest, so as to work these coal seams economically. Surely, in these circumstances, the man has a right to compensation, not merely for the value of the prop, but for the destruction of his property above.
The passing of this Amendment would restore the value of the surface to its pre-Bill figure. Obviously, it would also decrease the amount that should be paid to the owner of the minerals for the minerals. It would reduce the amount of money to be paid by the Government to certain mineral owners, because they would not merely be buying the coal and the right to get it, but they would be buying it subject to a liability to pay heavy compensation if the property on top were destroyed. Therefore, the owner of the minerals would get less; the value

of the coal would fall to exactly the same extent as the value of the surface would rise if this Amendment were carried. But, unfortunately, the Government have gone to the country with a grand gesture and said, "We are going to pay £66,000,000." If this Amendment is carried, the Government will still be paying £66,000,000, and getting something with a heavy liability on it; but the owner of the minerals, if the Amendment were carried, would get less for his coal, which he does not want to sell, and would get more for his surface. It is perfectly clear that the man who has built on his property and does not want his property let down, but prefers to keep his property, is going to suffer. But, say the Government, he can always go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and prove his case that it is undesirable economically that that coal should be worked. Is that so?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Colonel Wedgwood: Then at any rate some landlords can save their property. But how about the small man? Has the right hon. Gentleman had experience of taking a case before the Railway and Canal Commission? It would be necessary to employ the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to state the case, and the people who plead before the Railway and Canal Commissioners make the best incomes in this country. The Parliamentary Bar is a most prosperous concern, and those who appear before the Railway and Canal Commissioners also do well. The people I am thinking of are the small people in Burslem and elsewhere who own their houses underneath which there is coal. This coal, at the highest figure, cannot be worth more than £70, and the house may be worth £700. Such a man is to have his property destroyed, and be told that he can go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners and fight the case. They will not do it; they cannot afford it. There are countless people in that district who are suffering now and cannot afford to bring a case, although they have a very probable chance of winning, in that instance against the colliery company. These people, I say, are being robbed by this Bill, and certainly the feeling in North Staffordshire against the Bill will be strongly accentuated if this injustice is perpetrated this afternoon.
Let me turn to the far more serious case dealt with in sub-paragraph (2)—


the case in which a man owns the surface and the minerals, and the surface is not built on. It may be valuable building land, or it may be land on which no building is contemplated, or it may be land which a factory owner, driven from the town by subsidence letting him down, has bought in order to put his factory there. The coal underneath is probably of a very low value, being coal which has not been leased already, and perhaps being very deep. The coal vests in the Government. Then some colliery owner comes along and says he would like to lease this coal, that it is true it is very deep and very poor coal, and he will only pay a very small royalty for it, but he thinks he could work it economically in conjunction with another piece of land adjoining. Then the Coal Commission put a notice in the paper saying they are going to lease the coal under such-and-such an estate, and giving notice that henceforth anyone who puts up anything on that plot of land will have to take the necessary precautions, without specifying in the least what the necessary precautions are. I must say I think it might at any rate be provided that plans passed by a local authority should be regarded as plans which took the necessary precautions. The minerals are taken away for practically nothing; they are worked; and suddenly the owner finds that his estate is valueless either for houses or for the building of a factory.
Take our own case of the Wedgwood factory. We have been driven out of Stoke-on-Trent because they were looking out for coal underneath, and we had very expensive tunnel ovens and machinery which must not be shifted; it must be safe. Consequently, we have had to buy an estate just bordering on Stoke-on-Trent, and we determined to secure the minerals underneath, so that we should not have the whole of our capital destroyed by the ripping out of the minerals underneath. Now that we have bought it, we discover that it is no more secure than any other factory in Stoke-on-Trent. The Government will come along and say, "When you put up your factory there, you must take reasonable precautions against that factory being damaged." How is that to be done? Tunnel ovens are 200 feet long; the factory itself will cover five acres; how are we to take precautions against

that? Any upset of the level whatever would ruin the whole concern. What is to prevent the same history happening again? The factory built between a hundred and two hundred years ago has been ruined, and the next one may be ruined in exactly the same way. We cannot go to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, because it is not built yet.
What can we expect from the Government? We are to a certain extent helping British interests; we employ 1,200 people. There must be countless other people who for business reasons require an absolutely stable base. I see no means whatever whereby these people can avoid being ruined without being paid compensation. I do not expect in this Bill to get much justice, despite the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not expect to get much justice for anyone who has to face up to the coal interests of this country. But I do think that here you have a case where anybody who is swayed by abstract justice will say that this Amendment and the further Amendment which we have on the Paper are right, and that the Government are wrong in treating people in this way.

Amendment negatived.

6.59 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I beg to move, in page 47, line 42, at the beginning, to insert "loss or."
This Amendment is at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1, a) of paragraph 6. Sub-paragraph (1) as it stands gives compensation for:
(a) damage arising from such working to that land, exclusive of buildings or works thereon; and
(b) subject as hereinafter provided, damage arising from such working to buildings or works thereon.
I am asking that the words "loss or" should precede "damage," so that the compensation payable should not merely be compensation for the damage done but for the loss caused by the subsidence. Take the case of an ordinary householder whose house is damaged and who claims compensation under the existing law. At present, as a compromise, in order to avoid going to law, he gets the damage made good, but he does not get any compensation for loss to the value of the property due to the liability to damage and to disfigurement. He does not get compensation for the time the house is out of use and cannot be let. The object


of the Amendment is to see that in future the liability of the Government, or of the person to whom the Commissioners lease the minerals, for damage includes not merely damage to the property but all losses caused by the damage. I think that is perfectly fair. It is one of the points raised by the Royal Commission which recommended in its favour in the case of small properties.

7.2 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid my answer must be the same as on the last Amendment, that the liability falling on the Commission, or the lessee under the Commission, for subsidy should be the ordinary normal liability, so far as we can ascertain it, for which leaseholders have been content to allow their coal to be worked in the past. If you say you are going to put a liability greater than is normally put on those who work coal, and greater than was in the mind of the parties when the bargain was made, you are doing something unfair to the Commission.

Colonel Wedgwood: They pay less for the coal.

The Attorney-General: The sum to be paid for the coal has been fixed.

Colonel Wedgwood: Only the global sum.

The Attorney-General: It is determined by the global sum. I am afraid we cannot contemplate altering the basis in any material particular. Everyone appreciates very much the case that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. There are cases where the buildings on top are very much more valuable than any coal that you could get below. I do not know how far he will be prepared to go with me in assuming that the Commission will act like normal people in their senses, but assuming he will go some way with me in that direction, it would, of course, be intensely stupid to work coal worth £70 which might easily land them in a damage claim for £100. That is a real protection in some cases. There is the further protection of the Railway and Canal Commission. Where you have a number of houses I find it difficult to believe that the Commission would be so exacting as to insist on the working being continued except in cases where the national interest clearly required the coal to be worked at the expense of the surface owner.

Mr. Dunn: Disregarding the quality of the buildings on the surface or price, or anything else, looking at it from the underground point of view, where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the safety of the mine itself to take out the coal—perhaps in consequence of geological difficulties or of the nature of the seam, it is impossible to leave the coal in—what is the answer to that?

The Attorney-General: That is a different matter entirely. We cannot accept the liability to conseqential loss. It would be imposing on the Commission obligations greater than have been contemplated. I think the right hon. Gentleman said the Royal Commission on subsidence recommended compensation for consequential damage, but he is wrong about that.

7.11 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: I think it is not quite as easy as the Attorney-General has made out. I can give a case in which we were working coal which had full liability on it for any damage or loss, and not only for structural damage. The actual damage to property on the surface would not have been great, but the company that owned the building might not have been able to fulfil contracts and we should have been liable for heavy damages. The thing was argued for some time and in the end the company bought the coal from us, and therefore it was not worked. Now under the Bill there is the risk of it being worked by the Commission and the company's position will be worsened.

The Attorney-General: In that case when the company bought the coal from the hon. Gentleman he was willing to sell it more cheaply than he otherwise would have done, because of this exceptional liability for damage. When they come to get their compensation it will be based not on the exceptional liability on anyone who works it to pay consequential damage, but on the normal liability for damage and, other things being equal, they get more when they sell it to the Commission than they gave for it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 48, line 4, after "advertisement," insert "in the London Gazette and."—[Captain Crook-shank.]

7.16 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I beg to move, in page 48, line II, at the end, to insert:
and the Commission shall also include in such notice an intimation that the underground colliery plans arising from the beneficial exercise or grant of any right as aforesaid shall, subject to such safeguards as they may think fit, be available at any time to—

(a) prospective builders;
(b) local authorities in connection with town planning and housing schemes;
(c) owners of property desiring to prefer claims for compensation believed to be due to subsidence occasioned by mineral workings."
This Amendment deals with the right of the colliery owner to secure plans of underground workings. If the Government decide to work minerals in a particular locality they put a notice in the London Gazette and local papers, and, after that, no compensation will be paid for damage to buildings caused through minerals being worked on that land, unless reasonable and proper precautions have been taken in the design and construction of the buildings or works to minimise the damage in the event of subsidence. That is to say in these new leases, any damage to buildings through the minerals being got out underneath will be paid for provided that certain precautions have been taken. The Committee has decided that these precautions have to be taken, although it seems to me rather hard on the property owner to be told that, after the passage of this Bill he is to put cement floats under any houses he builds, or to put foundations going down to the centre of the earth for his machines, if he wishes to get any compensation for damage done to them as a result of the Government's digging coal out underneath. I shall certainly vote against that on Third Reading, but the Government have done their best to destroy the value of property in this way, and have enforced precautions of property owners which will be far more onerous than the building of the houses. These people might, at least, be allowed to see the plans of the underground workings, so that they can see what precautions to take. I have not the slightest expectation that the Minister of Mines will allow this, because I understand that the secrecy of colliery plans is a cardinal tenet; but, so far as the justice of this is concerned, it seems to be obvious. Otherwise, how

can people take reasonable precautions? If, however, the Committee feel that this is really one of the things that will not hurt anybody, and that might assist in avoiding that subsidence for which the Commission has to pay in any case if it happens, we might pass this Amendment, and enable people to carry on developments in the neighbourhood of collieries with a little more confidence.

7.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think we need have a very long debate on this point. We discussed the subject the other day and my right hon. Friend said that an assurance was obtained from the colliery owners ten years ago that they would give information, when reasonable requirements were put before them, and he also informed the Committee that they had within recent weeks repeated the assurance. He pointed out that the undertaking went further than the proposal in the Amendment, as the owners were prepared to give notice of their intentions, and he said that, in our view, that was more valuable than any words which could have been put in the Bill. This Amendment has a much more restricted sphere. On the last occasion the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) threw out the suggestion that something might be considered with a view to the prescribing of precautions by local authorities. Of course, this raises rather a wide question. The matter is now put in a slightly different light, and I see some force in the contention the right hon. Gentleman has made. If he does not press this, I can tell him now that we are looking into this question of plans, in the light of the Debate the other day and of what has been said this afternoon, and if, on balance, it is thought desirable to do something in this regard, the matter can, perhaps, be dealt with on Report stage.

7.24 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: What I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to say was that reasonable precautions should be such as were insisted on by the local authorities—that the decision of the local authority as to what were reasonable precautions should be the criterion. If that is what the Government contemplate looking into and adopting, I think that would be an improvement.

Captain Crookshank: Of course I cannot give an assurance, beyond saying that I will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.25 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 49, line 7, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the case of any coal or mine of coal which is held on a title comprising other subjects also, the conveyance to be assumed as aforesaid shall be deemed to contain a clause of assignation of writs to the effect only of enabling the Commission to maintain and defend their right to the coal or mine and, for that purpose, an obligation to make the writs forthcoming on a proper receipt and undertaking to redeliver.
The sole purpose of the proviso is to deal with the case of custody of right to title where a mine and certain other subjects are held on the same title. It is little more than drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, line 19, at the end, add:
(c) For any reference to the London Gazette there shall be substituted a reference to the Edinburgh Gazette."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to compensation payable under Section six of this Act.)

7.27 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 50, line 1, to leave out from "underlease," to "and," in line 2.

This Amendment and the next Amendment are purely consequential on Amendments already made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 7, at the end, insert:
with the exception of any such interest that is a retained interest by virtue of a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act."—[Captain Crookshank.]

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 50, line 44, to leave out from "persons," to the end of line 4, page 51.

This Amendment, along with a number of other Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, raises a question of considerable importance, and, as the issue is entirely different from the one we have been discussing, it would be

as well, perhaps, if I outlined the background of the position. The Amendment concerns the machinery which is to be set up for arriving at the valuation of compensation to be paid to mineral owners whose rights are to be purchased under the Bill. It is first proposed to establish a Central Valuation Board, which will consist of an independent person, who shall be the chairman, and who is a member of the legal profession, and two other independent persons, and the rest of the Board will be drawn from the valuation regions, which will be established by the Valuation Board itself. Assuming that the number of regions into which the mining areas of Great Britain are divided is 12, there will be a member for each of those regions on the Central Valuation Board, in which case the board will consist of 15 persons.

It is laid down that each individual member from each region shall be a person who is engaged in the management of mineral properties, so that, assuming that the Board consists of 15 persons, one will be the chairman, two will be independent persons, and the other 12 will be individuals employed by existing landlords in the management of mineral estates. The functions of the Central Valuation Board are not in themselves so important as the functions of the regional valuation boards. The first function of the central board will be to divide up the country into a number of regions, after which in each of those regions there will be a regional board, which will consist of all the managers of mineral estates in that region. There will be a chairman appointed by the Board of Trade, after consultation with mineral owners, but that regional board will consist entirely of the managers of mineral estates in that area.

Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is now talking about regional boards, but the Amendment has to do with the Central Valuation Board. Could we keep them distinct, because there is a Government Amendment on the second point which might alter what the hon. Member wants to say?

Mr. Bevan: I am not going to argue the principle of the regional board at all, but in order that the Committee might be able to understand the significance of our Amendments it is necessary to keep in mind the machinery of valuation, and I


thought it was for the convenience of the Committee, as these Amendments raise almost the same principle, that we should have a general discussion upon mineral agents being members of either the central board or the regional board.

The Chairman: I think it would be inconvenient to discuss the regional boards at any length on this Amendment. We must keep the two Amendments separate.

Mr. Bevan: I accept your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I thought it would be convenient if we could discuss the general principle, because, as a matter of fact, the Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the Government makes the position, from our point of view, much worse. However, the first point to be considered is that when a claim for compensation is made, it is first made to the regional board, which will assess the value of the claim. If the owner of the houses, the person making the claim, is aggrieved, he will appeal to the Central Valuation Board, consisting, as I have already said, of 12 representatives, each drawn from a valuation region and each of them being mineral agents. The central board nominates a referee, who shall hear the appeal of the owner of the houses against the original assessment made by the regional board, but that referee will be, or may be, a member of the central board, and he will himself be a manager of a mineral estate. He will therefore he hearing an appeal against a valuation made by mineral agents themselves, so that you have here a number of landlords, owners of mineral rights, making a claim for compensation, and their original assessment is made by their own employés. They appeal against the assessment, and the appeal is heard by another employé.
The only protection under this procedure is that the person who is appointed to be the referee shall not have been involved in the original valuation or a member of the board that made it. In the whole of this machinery the valuation and the appeal against it will be made by existing managers of mineral estates, who are employés of the landlord whose interests are being considered. The first point is that we consider that to be a highly undesirable proceeding, that a landlord's own employé should assess the value of the claim

made by the landlord. The hon. and gallant Member may say, "Oh, it does not matter, because, after all, there is no more money to be paid by the State, and all that is going to happen is that the landlords will have a dog fight about the share that each shall have of the global figure, which is already determined. Therefore we are not interested at all to keep the ring; all that we do is to appoint a chairman and two independent members, who will, as it were, see to it that they do not go outside the ropes, and we are not bothered about the dog fight at all." The hon. and gallant Gentleman might say that it is also necessary that, in so far as the landlords are quarrelling, as they will be, about their individual shares of the £66,000,000, the arbitration tribunal which determines to each his share shall be one in which the landlords have confidence, because, after all, the State is not bothered about it, and the landlords themselves should be able to employ the assistance of their own mineral agents in the matter. I do not want to anticipate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, but that is probably what he will say to me as part of his reply. In the next place he will say, "After all, these people are the only people in the country who have the expert knowledge necessary to do this work, and you cannot employ anybody else."
As to the first point, that we are not interested in what happens to the individual landlord because the total sum of money to be paid has already been determined, the fact is that this is a matter of very great importance. While I do not wish to say a word against the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he is not in a position to accept the Amendments, or Amendments of a similar kind, we shall want to have the services of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is going to be immediately involved in this matter. Although it is true that these mineral agents will only be concerned in this regard in distributing the £66,000,000 among the mineral owners of the country, they will also be assessing, as far as I understand it, the value of ancillary minerals, and no quota is fixed there. In addition to the £66,000,000, there is an estimate of £10,000,000, and we are not even limited to that amount, because the assessment of the ancillary minerals might exceed the £10,000,000. Indeed, we do not know—we are not informed, because


it is not known—what proportion of the £10,000,000 is to be used for that assessment, so that we are handing over to the employés of the landlords the valuation of unknown claims against the Exchequer.
This is a very complicated procedure, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should interrupt me if I am incorrect, because if what I am saying is true, it is a very serious charge indeed against the Government and the procedure contemplated under the Bill. Each landlord will be making a claim, not only in respect of his share of the global sum, but also in respect of the ancillary minerals that might have to be worked, and he therefore will be making a claim for his share of the £10,000,000 or any more than the £10,000,000 that might be necessary. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with me so far? If he does, it is a very serious matter indeed. We are handing over to the landlords the right to determine how much money the State shall pay for ancillary minerals. Obviously, if they are to have that right, they will assess their claims as high as they can, and the House is therefore being committed to the payment of an unknown figure. I am sure that this House would not part with its control over the expenditure of public money in such a way if it really understood what it was doing. It is being lured into accepting this machinery because of the reassurance that, the £66,000,000 having been fixed, we are not committed to any more.
If we had fixed the compensation to be paid for ancillary minerals in the same way, then we could view this procedure with some complacency, but the amount may be any figure within the £10,000,000, and it may be even more than the £10,000,000. As far as I understand it from the Bill, if the assessment comes to more than £10,000,000, the Commission will have to find the money, and additional borrowing powers will have to be given. It seems to me that that is a very serious position indeed. It is true that this body of men is a highly competent body, possessed of a knowledge that is not possessed by anyone else in the country. It is also true that the assessment of claims by the mineral owners cannot be made without the help of a body of this kind, and it is not intended by my Amendments that their services should be dispensed with. What

we are suggesting is that the Central Valuation Board should consist exclusively of independent persons appointed by the Board of Trade. If the services of the mineral agents are needed, as they will be, they should be called in either as expert witnesses or as assessors. They ought not to be valuers themselves. No particular one of them should be a referee to adjudicate on a valuation, because he or one of his colleagues will have determined the procedure by which the valuation has been arrived at and the principles on which it has been obtained. If you give me the right to determine the procedure and the right to lay down the principles of the valuation, you will have gone a long way towards enabling me to tell what the amount will be.
Let us assume that a particular mineral agent is interested in a claim made by "A." He may have assessed the claim made by "A." He may be a member of the Central Valuation Board, and the mineral valuer, for, say, Yorkshire. There may be an appeal against an assessment of the Yorkshire regional board, of which he is a member. He cannot surely be a referee on that—you could have the referee appointed from Wales to umpire on the Yorkshire valuation—but he will have already had a share in the original procedure and in laying down the principles of valuation, and he will see to it that if possible the decision will favour his own assessment of his employer's rights. He may, therefore, in many instances have considerable opportunities of influencing the result of a valuation. That would seem to me to be altogether inequitable, and there is surely nothing unreasonable in our suggestion that if these mineral agents are employed they ought not to be employed as members of the Board but in the capacity of witnesses or assessors.
The Commission will have to find the expenses of the valuation, because the costs of valuation are included in the £10,000,000. Who will decide the procedure to be gone through? The people who will receive the damages—the mineral agents. They will decide the procedure of valuation and they will be paid as compensation, out of the £10,000,000, the expenses of the valuation. They will therefore have a vested interest in making the procedure as expensive as possible.

Mr. Peake: The scale is laid down.

Mr. Sevan: The scale is laid down, I think by the Treasury, but even if there is a scale laid down, that scale does not determine the amount of the expenses. It is the procedure that will determine that.

Mr. Peake: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member shakes his head. He knows no more than I do what the procedure will be, because it is unknown. All that we know is that we have a bare skeleton of procedure set out. We may take it for granted that there will be a vested interest in appeals against valuations because the more appeals there are the more expenses there will be. In point of fact, we are handing over to these mineral valuers the opportunity of deciding how much of the £10,000,000 they are to receive from the Commission. That is an utterly unreasonable and unjustifiable procedure, and the way to get over it is for the mineral agents to be employed in every case in the capacity of witnesses or assessors. If they are so employed the independent persons who constitute the Central Valuation Board will have complete control over the procedure, and will not have a vested interest in making it as complicated and as expensive as possible.
There is not one hon. Member who would hand over his money in the way that is contemplated in this Bill. If hon. Members generally were seized with the undesirability of what is proposed to be done they would join with me in pressing my Amendment upon the Government. The Central Valuation Board must have a quorum of 10 members. There will be the Chairman who will be a legal representative, two independent members and seven mineral agents. At any legally-constituted meeting the mineral agents will be in a majority, and those agents will themselves in every instance be in the employ of the landlords and will be engaged in determining how much additional money, over and above the £66,000,000, can be extracted from the Commission. This seems to me to open up an endless vista of corruption and nepotism. It is highly undesirable that people should be placed in that position, and it is a gross abuse of public procedure that this machinery should be established.

7.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: My first words must be to take exception to the last

words of the hon. Member, when he said that this opens up a vast vista of corruption. I would remind him that he is dealing with members of a very honourable profession—mineral agents.

Mr. Bevan: May I say at once that I was not making any charges, but it is surely good public policy to protect people from being exposed to temptation of this kind.

Captain Crookshank: I am glad the hon. Member has modified what he said.

Mr. Bevan: No. I said "endless possibilities." I did not say "endless corruption."

Captain Crookshank: The Amendment, if it were passed, would reduce the Central Valuation Board to three persons—an independent legal chairman and two other independent persons. We have adopted the procedure that is laid down in this Schedule for the valuation, for one or two obvious reasons. The first one is because the work of mineral valuation is very technical and there are very few people who are capable of exercising it. Those people are, in the nature of things, employed on that work to-day. If we accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member it would be impossible to go outside and find people who would do the valuing. It could not be done, because those particular valuers do not exist outside. Therefore the valuations must be done by those who have a knowledge and experience of this highly technical business.
The functions of the Central Valuation Board are not very great. It has to divide up the country into regions. For that purpose persons will be nominated to serve on the Central Board and when the regions have been decided, there will be one representative member for every region. The Central Board will also allocate to the regions the sub-divisions of the global sum. Beyond that they will have to lay down the rules of procedure and also such general rules as they consider necessary. Rules will also be required in order to secure uniformity of valuation all over the country. The work that will have to be done will be that of dividing between the owners the sum that will be allocated to them. The hon. Member was right when he said that neither the Commission nor the Exchequer are directly concerned with that


matter. A certain sum has been decided upon for allocation and the only problem is how that is to be properly divided in view of the claims of the people who are at present the owners.
Hon. Members have commented upon the length of time that it will take to get the valuation done, but if we did not make use of the existing personnel for that purpose the time would be prolonged beyond all sense; in fact the work could not be done. Therefore, the scheme of the Bill is on the lines that are laid down, and the Central Valuation Board is charged with the functions that I have mentioned. The hon. Member used the word "landlords," and sought to make a case on the ground that it was wrong to employ the mineral agents in the way proposed because they are the employés of the landlords. All the owners are landlords, big or small, otherwise they would not be concerned in the matter. I am satisfied that the method laid down in the Bill is the quickest way of doing the work. The hon. Member pointed out that when a claim was made and objection was taken to it it would be referred to the Central Valuation Board who do not deal with the appeal but pass it on to a referee. He said that the global sum belonged to a certain number of people, and what proportion they got was no concern of his. He was more concerned about those subsidiary hereditaments which we were discussing earlier.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) dealt with much the same point, namely, that if there were the shadow of a doubt about the valuation of those hereditaments it was important that it should be resolved as independently as possible. We have had a lot of discussion on that point, and it is largely in order to meet the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends that we propose later to move an Amendment to the effect that the referees should be appointed by the Board of Trade. That, we think, is the right answer to the point which was made earlier with regard to independent referees. The only other point is as to costs. The scale of the costs of proceedings is to be that prescribed by the Treasury and naturally it will not be extravagant because we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman opposite that this work should be done as economically as possible. But by and large, I do not see

how we can possibly deal with this valuation procedure better than by the method which is here proposed and which brings in the people who are most competent to deal with these matters. A legal chairman and two independent assessors would, in the very nature of things, be unable themselves to draw up rules to secure uniformity in dealing with these cases, and that is one of the things which will be required. It is desirable that the cases of people in different parts of the country should be dealt with as uniformly as possible under the valuation rules. I hope I have gone some way to remove the anxiety expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Bevan: I recognise the effect of the subsequent Amendments to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, but I ask him why should it be impossible for the Central Valuation Board to consist of persons other than mineral agents? Why should it not consist of persons who are competent to weigh evidence? Every day the courts have to judge the value of expert evidence. Why should the Board include any mineral agents at all? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not replied to that question. He must remember that the assessment about which the referee has to make a decision, has already been arrived at by mineral agents. Therefore, the subsequent decisions will be to a large extent influenced by the level of those assessments.

Captain Crookshank: I agree that if it were a court, the court would be able to assess the evidence, but the hon. Gentleman must know that in various other cases it is found generally desirable to have people with expert knowledge as members of these bodies. For example, we were discussing the other day committees of investigation. I know that is a different case. I am simply pointing out that sometimes it is desirable and expeditious to have expert people, and expedition is part of the problem in this case.

8.5 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any precedent for interested parties being made arbitrators on the question of how much should be paid by the State for the properties in which they are interested? Take the case of an official arbitrator


under the Acquisition of Land Act. Before a person is appointed as an official arbitrator he must give up all connection with business. Those arbitrators are appointed from people who are generally members of firms of surveyors, but they have to dissociate themselves entirely from all the private business. They must go out of business before they act as official arbitrators. In this case, during all the material time, when these people are acting in the capacity of judges as to how much is to be given to certain individuals, they are to continue in their private business as mineral agents. They are to continue to act as agents for the very people whose properties they are assessing.
The suggested Amendment to prevent them voting on the particular property which they represent does not touch the matter. If there are, say, two properties, one represented by A and the other by B, then if A votes the right way in regard to B's property, B will vote the right way in regard to A's property. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but we have to make allowance for human nature in these matters. In the case of the Commission, a member of it must not be a member of a trade union because it might give the appearance of being interested. But that consideration apparently does not arise in the case of the people who are to arbitrate between the public and the owners as regards these subsidiary hereditaments. I am not concerned about how they divide up the £66,000,000. As regards that, we can leave the mineral agents to squabble among themselves.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I spoke earlier, and it may save time if I tell him that as a result of the speeches which he and his hon. Friends behind him made, we propose to insert an Amendment that the referees should be nominated by the Board of Trade.

Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry I was not here earlier, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement does not meet the point. The referees function only if there is an appeal. The decision of the tribunal from which an appeal is made is always of the greatest importance in deciding that appeal, and there is always, necessarily, a certain bias in favour of

upholding such a decision, unless and until it is apparent that there is something wrong with it. Therefore the decision of the Valuation Board, though it will not bind the referees, will be a large factor in the decisions at which the referees arrive. There will be knowledge of the general standards which the Valuation Board have fixed for compensation for these subsidiary hereditaments. We are aware of no precedent in the law under which a person who is to arbitrate between the public and certain interests is also the representative of those interests.
This is more than a point connected with the Bill. It is a big principle. This Bill may be used as a precedent for many future Measures and if the idea is introduced that the person who is to decide between the public and the owner is to be of a class of persons who are employed by the owners at the moment when the decision is made, it will be an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. As I have said, we do not mind about the £66,000,000. That is a matter for the royalty owners. They can divide it as they like. It will not affect the public one way or the other. But when it comes to the other class of case, in which compensation is entirely at large—just as much at large as in the case of a local authority which goes out to acquire property in its own district—that is a different matter. Suppose we introduced a Bill which said that where property was acquired by local authorities the body to assess the compensation should consist of officers of local authorities, I should be very much surprised if there was not a tremendous outcry. It would be said to us: "You are selecting the very people who represent the acquiring authorities to determine the compensation and obviously they will determine it as low as they can, because their own local authority may be the next one to acquire property and they will set a precedent which will inhere to their own benefit."
The mineral agents are the employés of the royalty owners. They are to set a precedent, as regards what is to be paid for these rights by the public, and they can do so absolutely at large. They can decide on any figure they like. There can be no justification for such a proposal. We do not want the bias to be in the opposite direction. We are not asking that the Commission should appoint all the members of the Valuation Board, but


we do ask that the bias should not be in the way which is proposed in the Schedule. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises the point that it is necessary to have people with intimate knowledge, we say that in this case the right place for the person with intimate knowledge is in the witness-box. Certainly, let us avail ourselves of his intimate knowledge and of such help and guidance as he can give in the form of evidence. But do not put him in the position of a judge, because that is not his proper place. He is essentially an advocate or a witness. There would be no difficulty whatever in having a Valuation Board consisting of members who know about the law and custom of valuation—it is not a very difficult thing for people to know about—but who do not represent the interests, either of the Commission or of the people whose property is being assessed.
I cannot think that the Government are discharging properly their responsibility to the public if they put this question of how much the owner is to get for the property, exclusively in the hands of the mineral agents. It amounts to putting in the hands of a majority of mineral agents the decision as to how much their masters, the royalty owners, are to get. The mineral agents are, for this purpose, the servants of the royalty owners, and the Government are putting in the hands of the servants the decision as to how much the masters shall get from the public. That is an extremely dangerous precedent and it is a proposal which no person who is concerned with justice in these matters could possibly permit to go through without protest.
I seriously ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to alter this system as far as subsidiary rights are concerned. It could easily be done. You could say, for the purposes of the subsidiary rights, the chairman and the two other independent persons, and not for the mineral rights, and simply leave it at that. When dealing with subsidiary rights, you should have independent members, and when dealing with other rights you should have your full Central Valuation Board. I do not see any difficulty about it. The mineral agents will be in their proper places representing the employers' interests and will put forward the best case they can either as advocates or witnesses, but they will be in the wrong place as

judges. In the circumstances, it is impossible for them, however much they try to dissociate themselves, when they are day by day carrying on the business during these four years of making the claims. They are the people who have to do it, and will have to get out the particulars and the evidence; and to ask them, at the same time, to be the judges, is really to ask them to perform a task which no human being can perform with justice to himself or to the public. I seriously ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the sake of the administration of the Act, whether people like it or not, to make some alteration as regards that matter.

8.17 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am as anxious as the hon. and learned Gentleman that subsidiary hereditaments should be dealt with in the interests, which are fair and proper, of all parties concerned, one of which is the future Commission. The Amendment deals with the Central Valuation Board, and I do not see how that problem there arises.

Sir S. Cripps: They have to value the subsidiary rights.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right there. The functions of the Central Board are very few. First of all, they have to decide what are the regions of valuation, and that does not affect the subsidiary rights in the slightest. In these regions, they have to sub-divide the global figure, which has nothing to do with subsidiary hereditaments. Further than that, on page 60 of the Bill they have to prescribe rules for securing unanimity of valuation, which, in effect, means the best valuing practice, so that everybody is dealt with fairly within the global figure.

Sir S. Cripps: And subsidiary hereditaments.

Captain Crookshank: In so far as it touches them, it is very small. The rules of valuation are like the rules of other professions.

Sir S. Cripps: The rules of valuation are not the rules of a profession. They are the rules according to which you will arrive at values, and, according as these rules are fixed, you may arrive at a high or a low set of values. Take the central body with regard to rating valuation. I


imagine that this body carries out similar arrangements with regard to getting uniformity of valuation. The rules they make vitally affect the question of the total quantity of subsidiary rights, whether they come to the £10,000,000 which they estimate, or to £20,000,000 or £5,000,000, and, surely, that is not a function to be carried out by a mineral agent.

Captain Crookshank: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it now gives a more general uniformity, and I am quite prepared to say that we are satisfied that the general provisions of the Bill are right, and are going to be fair in the interests of the Commission we have in mind. [Interruption.] It is not the public, it is really the Commission.

Sir S. Cripps: The public provides the £10,000,000 and not the Commission.

Captain Crookshank: Everyone is the public if it comes to that. I am anxious to get the valuation of subsidiary hereditaments upon a proper basis, and we think that the procedure in the Bill will do it. It is the right of the Commission to have their own valuer and to make their own claim. If that is right, and the Commission have this right, that is an end of it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied with the valuation put upon the subsidiary hereditament by the Central Board nothing further need be done. It is only when they are not satisfied. The fact that the Valuation Board makes a valuation or not does not matter, so far as that is concerned.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me whether I am satisfied or not. If you have an arbitrary power such as have the regional boards and the Central Board, it does matter what the first decision is. Even if you appeal from it, you have the onus of showing that it is wrong, and it is a very serious onus.

Captain Crookshank: I realise, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that he believes that as a matter of procedure there is something wrong with it, but as a matter of procedure I do not see anything wrong with it, and from that valuation there is a reference to a referee. In order to meet this point we are suggesting that that should be determined by the President of the Board of

Trade, who is the most competent person you can have. On the evidence before me, I am prepared to say that we ought to avoid further machinery, if that can be done. We are advised that the present proposal is a perfectly reasonable and proper one in the interests of the Commission. I am prepared to look at the matter again to see whether some of the things which the hon. and learned Gentleman has said really make it necessary for us to go further, but frankly, what was put in was done in order to meet this point and in our view it does meet it. But I shall fail in my duty if I do not do what I said I would do. I will see whether it is strong enough, but I say straight away that in our view it is.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines said that we are going beyond the Amendment which has been moved. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the Central Board to a chairman and two independent persons. It will consist exclusively of these three. We have another Amendment to limit the regional board also. We do that, not because we are concerned about the global figure, but about these subsidiary hereditaments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that this is the thing with which we are quarrelling. He has told us that the mineral agents ought to be responsible for valuation, because there are no other persons with the degree of knowledge which they possess. The assumption, therefore, is that the referee who is to be appointed will be a mineral agent. If there are no other persons who can provide valuations of this sort, then an appeal by the Commission against the valuation of a mineral agent goes to a mineral agent who alone is competent to settle the matter. If it is a mineral agent who is to be the referee it will be a mineral agent who, in the first place, in some region or another has fixed the valuation of a subsidiary hereditament. All mineral agents will be members of the regional board, and, therefore, the mineral agent who is to be the referee will in some region or another have valued subsidiary hereditaments. At some stage of the procedure the assessor of a valuation on which he is to be the referee, has already made the valuation.

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid we are somewhat out of order, but if the


hon. Member will look at Part III of the Schedule he will see how the referee and the valuations are dealt with.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member has said that he proposes to deal with the matter in a later Amendment, and I have already suggested that it would have been for the convenience of the Committee if we had had a general discussion. What we are really concerned about is that the valuation of subsidiary hereditaments shall be achieved in a just manner as between the Commission and the mineral owner. All mineral valuers will be members of the regional board.

Captain Crookshank: That is subject to the decision of the Board.

Mr. Bevan: All regional boards will consist of the managers and mineral agents in the district. If an assessment has been made by a regional board of subsidiary hereditaments and the Commission appeals against the assessment, the Central Board or the Board of Trade have to appoint a referee. There is to be a panel of referees which will include all or any of the members other than the independent members of the Central Valuation Board; the panel is to consist of mineral agents who are members of the Central Valuation Board. The hon. and gallant Member has pointed out that in no circumstances will they contemplate anybody else being the referee, because there is no one with this special knowledge except mineral agents, and if therefore an appeal is made against the valuation of a regional board, it is going to be to a referee who will also be a mineral agent, and who in his original capacity will have already valued the subsidiary hereditament. Surely that is an impossible position. We must not assume that these persons are like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Everybody acts upon the assumption that persons are inclined to be dishonest, at any rate in the commercial world, unless safeguards are established. People do not have auditors because secretaries are dishonest, but because they may be dishonest. You are exposing these people to the greatest temptation in the discharge of their duties to their employers, the owners. They will fix the values of subsidiary hereditaments as high as possible, and then in their capacity as referees they will be asked to turn the valuation down.
What is a referee going to do? Having in mind his own valuation he will have to decide whether it is unreasonable and ought to be turned down, and also, the valuations made by his colleagues in other parts of the country. He will have an interest in keeping up his own valuation because what he lays down as the value of a subsidiary hereditament will govern what a subsequent referee will say should be the value of the hereditaments which he values. My hon. and learned Friend is a mineral valuer in Yorkshire and I am a mineral valuer in South Wales. I have valued subsidiary hereditaments in South Wales for my employer, the owner of the mineral rights, and he has valued them in Yorkshire. The Commission appeals against my assessment and at once my hon. and learned Friend is the referee. He knows that the Commission is going to appeal against his assessment, and that I am going to be the referee. What is he going to do? He is going to arrive at a decision which will form a precedent for his own assessment when that is appealed against. It is an absurd and impossible position, and we cannot allow it. No hon. Member will dare to defend such a position. I admit that the hon. and gallant Member has promised to look into it, but he did so with the proviso that if he thought further protection ought to be given, he would consider whether the Bill ought not to be strengthened. Surely the case made out is strong enough to demand that an Amendment should be made that will exclude the possibility we are pointing out, and that must be the exclusion of subsidiary hereditaments from the regional valuation in the first place. Even if you have a referee who is not a mineral valuer the level at which he is going to make a decision will be determined by the regional valuation.
I come now to the last point. If it be possible, as it ought to be, to appoint a referee who is not a mineral agent, then there will be a person with competence to decide a matter of this kind, in which case the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument against my Amendment disappears. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that the Amendment could not be accepted because there is no body of persons in Great Britain able to do the job, except the mineral agents. If there are to be referees who are not


mineral agents, as ought to be the case, then there are other persons who can do the job. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in this difficulty: either the referees are to be mineral agents and therefore be exposed to the charges I make against this procedure, or they are not to be mineral agents, in which case there is no justification for resisting the Amendment. I maintain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reasons for resisting the Amendment are invalid, and we ought to ask him for a more favourable reply than he has yet given.

8.37 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: We do not wish to divide unnecessarily on this or on any other Amendment, but we regard the point raised in this Amendment as a cardinal one, not only as regards this Bill but as a precedent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would look into the matter again. May I suggest the lines on which he might look into it? In Clause 6, the Bill lays it down that the compensation shall be ascertained separately with regard to the coal and the subsidiary rights. There cannot be a single ascertainment of the two together. Therefore, from the very inception there is a separation of these two things. We do not care about the coal, which can be left exactly as it is under the Clause, but we do care about that which is separate, the subsidiary rights. Is there any difficulty in saying that when the Valuation Board is dealing with subsidiary rights, only the independent members shall act? That seems to me to be the commonsense way of dealing with the matter, to say the least. Secondly, when one comes to the referees, would not the right course be to follow the precedent of the Official Arbitrator, that is to say, to appoint somebody? If a mineral agent is wanted, appoint someone to do the job, make him give up everything else, and pay him a proper salary. In that way the referee would not be connected with the ownership of minerals. He could act just as the Official Arbitrator does.
Let it be remembered that the Official Arbitrator does not occupy a permanent appointment, and is appointed for only five years. Let the referee be appointed for that period of time. When he had finished that job, he would be able to get another job; he would be suitable as a

Coal Commissioner; at any rate, there would be no difficulty in his getting a job. Exactly the same course has been followed under the Acquisition of Land Act. Why not adopt that principle, which is a good one, and one that is easily worked? It would also mean having one referee doing the job throughout the whole period, which would be more satisfactory than having a number of different referees. If uniformity is wanted, this is the way to get it, and one would have an impartial referee. I suggest that on those Unes this matter could be satisfactorily solved without any serious disturbance of the procedure.

8.40 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestions. I am sorry that he did not envisage them a little earlier, so that I could have considered them and said what my views are on them; but perhaps he thought of them as the Debate proceeded, which, after all, is the object of Debates in the Committee. I do not think I can say any more than I said earlier. Perhaps we can leave the matter at that, and proceed with the other Amendments. We are at one in wanting to deal with this matter in a satisfactory manner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.41 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 51, line 42, to leave out from the beginning, to "engaged," in line 43, and to insert "such number of other members, being persons."
This is one of the series of Amendments of which we have been speaking with regard to the regional valuation boards. As the Bill is at present, everybody is to be a member of a regional valuation board who appears to the Board of Trade
to be engaged in the management of mineral estates in the region and to be persons having a knowledge of coal-mining and experience in the valuation of minerals.
That would be much too large a body, and these Amendments are designed to leave it to the Board of Trade to appoint out of that body such number as they consider suitable.

Sir S. Cripps: I intervene only in order to protect hon. Members on this side. This is, of course, the body to which we object. We do not intend to do what


we might have done if we had wished to stop the proceedings, that is to say, to divide; but we wish to make it clear that this is a matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to consider as far as subsidiary hereditaments are concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move, in page 51, line 44, after "region," to insert:
including estates to which Section twelve of this Act relates.
The sole object of this Amendment is to give equal opportunities to those colliery owners who also own their minerals as are given to mineral owners who do not own collieries.

8.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: In view of the Amendments which we are making, this Amendment is not necessary, for in appointing the regional valuation boards the Board of Trade will consider the claims of those whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 51, line 45, leave out "to be persons."

In line 46, at the end, insert "as the Board of Trade may determine."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 52, line 40, after "valuation," to insert, "under this Schedule."
This is to make it clear that a person is not debarred from being chairman of a valuation board if he has at any time acted in connection with the valuation of coal property.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 52, line 46, to leave out "take any part in any proceedings connected with the valuation," and to insert:
vote on the taking of any determination of the Board as to the value.
This Amendment will make clear that a member of a regional valuation board can act as advocate in the valuation of a holding. He cannot, of course, take part in the decision.

8.47 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not certain of the purpose of this Amendment. Originally the

right hon. Gentleman and those advising him thought that no member of a board should take any part in proceedings connected with the valuation of a holding in respect of which he has acted as a mineral agent. Now, however, it will be sufficient to debar him from acting in the actual decision upon it. Of course, if it is desirable for him to be present in order to be an advocate, that does not matter so much if it is in connection with the £66,000,000. If, however, it is in connection with the subsidiary hereditaments see what happens. The Commission has no advocate present, so that one side will have the right to have an advocate present to put his case and influence everybody present to arrive at a large figure, without a word being said by the Commission. It only emphasises the real impossibility of applying this procedure to the subsidiary hereditaments. Again, I only want to utter a word of caution and although we will not oppose the Amendment, we wish to put our objection in as regards subsidiary hereditaments.

Amendment agreed to.

8.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 53, line 2, at the end, to insert:
or, if he has any acquired interest, of a holding that comprises that interest.

This Amendment provides that nobody must take part in the settlement of a valuation in which he acted on behalf of the owner or if he himself has an acquired interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 53, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule and of rules made thereunder, the Central Valuation Board, a referee appointed under this Schedule, and a Regional Valuation Board shall have power to regulate their own procedure.
It is only reasonable that these persons should regulate their own procedure.

8.50 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: This may be all right as regards the Central Valuation Board and a regional valuation board, although it is a little dangerous to allow even that to pass entirely out of the hands of the Board of Trade. The Board may well desire to lay down certain regulations, because they might very well find that some complaints were being made about the way these things were proceeding.

Mr. Stanley: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that there should Be the approval of the Board of Trade?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, something of that sort, particularly in regard to the referee, because it has always been found necessary in cases where such persons have been appointed for some overriding authority to lay down the broad lines of their procedure, or at any rate, to retain the power to lay down those broad lines. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider it before the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

8.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 54, line 12, to leave out "statement to be furnished with an application for registration must specify," and to insert:
information to be furnished in relation to an application for registration shall extend to.
This Amendment is consequential on a new Clause we passed the other night dealing with the limitation of information required under the Registration Act. Under that Clause we said that in certain circumstances there would be indemnity if all the details prescribed had not been produced.

Amendment agreed to.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 56, line 12, after "that," to insert:
in the case of a holding belonging to an ecclesiastical corporation to which the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts apply, a notice must be served by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in any other case.
This is merely a machinery Amendment for the convenience of the Coal Commission and of the Church. In cases of coal under a glebe there might be more than one person who could approach the Coal Commission with notices of claims, and that is obviously inconvenient. It would be for the convenience of the Coal Commission and the Church that one body, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should have the duty of sending in notices.

Amendment agreed to.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 56, line 32, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the application of this sub-paragraph to a matter with respect to which the Commission or the Board of Trade

have given such an indication as to the information material in their opinion for valuation purposes as is mentioned in the Section of this Act (Limitation as to information required to be given under the Registration Act), the omission from the particulars of matter outside the scope of the indication given may be disregarded.

This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which we passed on Tuesday.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 57, line 15, to leave out "in," and to insert "that renders."

This Amendment, again, is consequential on the same new Clause.

8.55 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am sorry to delay the very happy course of the proceedings at the moment, but one cannot legislate quite in this way. It may be all right for the right hon. Gentleman, who has a note explaining the meaning of each Amendment, but it is impossible for the rest of the very large Committee which is present to see that we are not doing something stupid, unnecessary or wrong when we are proceeding at this speed. I suggest with great respect that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of saying, "This is the same as the last," or something of that kind, should give us a word or two of explanation, because then we should really be doing our job a little bit better than we are.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: This Amendment relates to the Clause which enables the Commission to refer a holding to a regional valuation board for valuation even if there were errors and omissions, if those errors and omissions are such as have already been held to be immaterial under that new Clause.

Mr. H. G. Williams: We are running a little fast, and if I occupy a moment or two it may give the President an opportunity to look into the matter. I take it that this Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with the next in line 16, otherwise it does not read. If that is so I can understand it, and if I can understand it probably the rest of the Committee can.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 57, line 16, after "thereof," to insert "open to objection."
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has already explained this Amendment. It has to be read with the previous one, and, like that, is also consequential on the new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STANLEY:

In page 57, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if from any information in the possession of the Regional Valuation Board it appears to them that there is in the particulars so registered as aforesaid an error or omission of material importance for valuation purposes, they may, at any time before they have settled their draft valuation of the holding, notify the Commission that they are of that opinion, and thereupon the said provisions shall again come into effect and, if any alteration is made thereunder in the particulars so registered as aforesaid, the valuation shall be made on the basis of the particulars as altered.

Mr. Stanley: This is another consequential Amendment on that same new Clause.

Sir S. Cripps: Apparently what has happened is that this Amendment was put down to-day for the first time and that the explanation of it has been omitted from the right hon. Gentleman's brief. I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate for attempting to supply the brief—

Mr. Stanley: He has not.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps somebody could get a brief from another place.

Mr. Stanley: I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Committee. We are getting on rather faster than we expected. This Amendment was put down only at the last moment. I have not got a note about it, and I will not move it now, for it would not be proper to ask the Committee to pass it without an adequate explanation.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STANLEY:

In page 57, line 40, after "paragraph," to insert:
or, in the case of particulars that are altered after that date under the proviso to the last preceding sub-paragraph, those particulars as so altered.

Mr. Stanley: This Amendment, also, I do not move now.

Amendments made: In page 57, line 42, after "and" insert "shall."

In line 43, leave out the second "of."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 57, line 44, after "respectively," insert:
be assumed prima facie to be correct and complete.
This Amendment, also, is consequential on the new Clause. The fact that in some cases the information given for registration purposes will not state all the circumstances of a holding make it necessary to limit the provisions of the Bill as they stand. As the Bill is worded at present that registration would be conclusive against the parties concerned in the registration as to what is vested in the Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

9.1 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 58, line 30, after "relates," to insert "wholly or partially."
This Amendment raises a very small point, but one which may be of importance. Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 11 of this Schedule deals with cases in which the Regional Valuation Board have settled a draft of their valuation of a holding and have to give notice in the prescribed form to the claimant
and if the valuation relates to subsidiary coal hereditaments within the meaning of Section six of this Act to the Commission.
Then, if the claimant or the Commission desire it, the Board will give him or them an opportunity of being heard. The Regional Valuation Board might settle a draft containing two items, one a main item, coal, and one, a subsidiary hereditament, and there might be some doubt whether in that case the valuation relates to the subsidiary coal hereditament. It might be held that that would not cover the case where it does not relate only to the subsidiary hereditament, and our object is to make sure that any valuation which in part or wholly relates to a subsidiary coal hereditament shall be open to this form of procedure. We suggest that the words "wholly or partially" should be inserted in order to cover the cases where a single valuation is put in with two items, one subsidiary and one coal, because it is desirable in such a case that the Commission should be able to take this procedure.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to consider this Amendment. I could not put a meaning to the words of the Amendment, because it seemed to me that a subsidiary hereditament could only be part of a coal holding, and therefore the word "wholly" could not be applicable, but I see now what his point is and I should like an opportunity to consider it.

Sir S. Cripps: I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 58, line 35, after "heard," to insert "and of giving evidence."
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to do with this Amendment what he has agreed to do with the previous one. If he wishes I will explain it. The proposal is that a claimant or some other party concerned shall have an opportunity of being heard. We ask that the Board, after hearing them, should give the opportunity for the production of evidence. The point is not too clear, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I had thought that that was the purpose of the Amendment. As the Schedule stands now, it is competent for the claimant to appear in person. That has been put in deliberately. It is our view that the royalty owners, who are the people concerned, should have an opportunity to be called. We also thought that it was desirable that the first stage of the proceedings should be rather informal, in view of the fact that there is a right of appeal to a referee, but we shall certainly look into the point in the general review which we are making of the procedure.

9.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The Clause deals only with subsidiary hereditaments. What will the position be? The Commission has a right to be heard by a competent mineral valuer and so has the claimant. This would cause a dispute between the Commission and the claimant before the regional valuation board. I am sure from my experience of the law that it is

highly desirable that the competent mineral valuers should be cross-examined, but if they are there as advocates they cannot be cross-examined. I am not certain what the position of the Commission will be. Will there be any mineral valuers at that stage employed by the Commission? They will be employed by the colliery companies. From where is the Commission to get a competent mineral valuer? Can it go into the Durham or South Wales coalfields? But all the valuers will be up to their eyes in work putting in claims for the owners. Afterwards, of course, the Commission will take them all over, but the Commission may be in a terrible difficulty. Suppose it has half-a-dozen or a dozen regions, and disputes going on in all of them, and the only person who can put the case is a competent mineral valuer. It may not have 12 of them to go into each district to put the case, in which circumstances the Commission cannot put its case at all. The Commission cannot put its own case, but only by a competent mineral valuer, and if it cannot get one it cannot put its case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I certainly will, but I have a feeling that the Commission, with its prospects of a long inquiry, will have a certain drawing power.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 58, line 46, leave out "Central Valuation Board," and insert "Board of Trade."—[Mr. Stanley.]

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 59, line 3, after "made," to insert "to the Board of Trade."
This is the first of a series of Amendments which together constitute a substantial amendment which sets up a panel of referees for appeal from the Central Valuation Board. The point has been largely discussed on a previous Amendment. These Amendments are intended to meet a point which was made before Christmas in regard to the subsidiary hereditaments, and which we undertook to look into. I think all of us agree when we come to this valuation for the subsidiary hereditaments that we have to


take every possible precaution to see that the sum payable is not swollen against the Commission.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I shall not waste the time of the Committee by rediscussing these points, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account when he reconsiders this matter that he has not really done anything very much here, because he has kept the constitution of the panel the same. The words are that the panel may consist of all the members other than the independent members. The right hon. Gentleman is excluding them. It may consist of the mineral agents, locally and regionally. Nowhere else is "may be" said, and prima facie it is a mineral agents' panel, from whom one is selected.

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly look more closely into this matter. I am not sure whether one man will be able to do all the work that is to be undertaken.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 59, line 4, leave out "the Central Valuation Board," and insert "they."

In line 5, leave out "in the prescribed manner."

In line 6, leave out "the Board," and insert "them."

In line 8, leave out "Board," and insert "Central Valuation Board or of any Regional Valuation Board."

In line 23, leave out "more than one person," and insert:
the claimant and also by a person intervening, or by two or more persons intervening.

In line 37, leave out "him," and insert "that person."

In line 39, leave out the first "he," and insert "the referee."—[Mr. Stanley.]

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 60, line 37, to leave out "of section thirty-three of this Act."

Clause 33 provides that the liability of the Commission with respect to the payment of costs shall not extend to costs occasioned by disputes between adverse claimants.

Amendment agreed to.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: I beg to move, in page 60, line 44, at the end, to insert:
and the sum total of all such costs shall be deducted from the total sum allocated for compensation in each region in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section six of this Act before such sum is apportioned amongst the claimants in accordance with Sub-section (7) of Section seven of this Act.
We on this side of the Committee are not against payment for costs reasonably incurred by a claimant, but, if some safeguard of this description is not inserted, one can conceive that much more than the £66,000,000 will be reqired to meet the costs incurred in taking over the royalties. Disputes may arise that will be long drawn out, and the costs may be very heavy. The persons involved may not be very much concerned as to how long the case may last if they have the idea that someone other than themselves will foot the bill for costs. It would put a different complexion on the whole matter if they knew that any costs incurred would have to be met out of the amount allocated to the valuation region, and that money so spent on the payment of costs would have to come out of their apportionment, thus leaving less money to be paid by way of compensation.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The hon. Member suggests that the valuation which will be proceeding may be dragged out and costly. That will probably be the case because the persons adversely affected think they have not got a square deal. As I understand the Amendment, it proposes that the costs, win or lose, shall be paid by the person who grumbles, or by the group of persons who may be adversely affected. It seems to me to be a strange principle that, in a case where you have legitimately protested and where you are right, nevertheless the costs shold be deducted from that part of the global sum which has been allocated to your region. That seems to be monstrously unfair. Surely, if you are right, the fact that you are right and the fact that it has taken a long time to prove it should not add a further burden or rob you of something. That seems to me to be the significance of the Amendment, and for this reason, unless someone can supply me with better reasons, I shall vote against it.

9.22 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We cannot accept this Amendment, for the very good reason that, on the larger issue, it seems to us quite clear that if for good reasons, or whatever reasons it likes, the State comes in and buys property from persons who are not anxious to sell it, it is not reasonable that the costs involved in that transaction should fall elsewhere than upon those people. Moreover, it was specifically one of the references of the tribunal which made the award of the global figure, that they were not to make any allowance on account of the acquisition being compulsory, or of the fact that the distribution of compensation would involve expense. Therefore, in the valuation they made, they had no regard to what the costs of the valuation and so on might be. In view of that fact, it would be a monstrous thing for the House to upset the basis of the award by saying that these charges could be taken out of the global figure.

9.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think the Secretary for Mines has dealt very satisfactorily with this point. What is happening now is that a perfectly free hand is being given to all claimants to litigate as much as they like at the cost of the State. That is not a very hopeful way in which to start proceedings. Indeed, I should think there had never been such a paradise for lawyers as this, where both parties can litigate as much as they like without either of them paying the costs. That is a most gorgeous prospect. The analogy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman really does not touch the question. It is not a question of arriving at the amount of compensation. That has been done. This is merely a question of how the swag is to be divided up. It may be that there are legitimate differences of opinion as to how the swag is to be divided up. On the other hand, it may be that there is a multiplicity of squabbling merely because there is so much swag to be divided up, but it is a very fantastic conception that you should say to all these mineral owners, "You have to see that you get the most out of this Bill and we will pay both sides to see how they can get it. The more you fight, the more we will put up to pay your expenses." That is not a very proper method of procedure, surely. It might be that in some very strictly limited circumstances you might say, "If the

fight is a proper one, we will in certain circumstances pay some sum towards your costs," but to say that
the Commission shall pay the costs reasonably incurred by the claimant, or a person intervening, in respect of any holding in giving effect in relation to that holding to the preceding provisions in this part of this Schedule or the rules made thereunder,
really is out of all reasonableness. All sorts and kinds of people are going to put in claims to these undiscovered minerals all over the country. Obviously anyone who thinks there is any coal near any bit of land that he owns will do it. It does not cost much. When you put your claim in, all the fighting for it is done free.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to observe Sub-section (3)—no value, no costs.

Sir S. Cripps: I quite agree, but there is always the chance, even then, of saying, "This is quite unreasonable. After all, we had a good chance of getting something. We were advised by mineral agents." I have often heard it said, "We were advised by counsel that we had a good claim to put forward," and reading this section it is obvious that the intention of Parliament was that the parties were to have all their costs. I should like at least to have words put in to show that that is not the intention of Parliament that everyone should litigate as much as possible and spend as much as possible on the lawyers. I think that is a thoroughly bad idea. [Interruption.] I am not at all surprised at the laughter that comes from the other side. Whenever anyone gets up on those benches he is generally speaking for a vested interest, and it strikes them as an extraordinary thing that I, a lawyer, say I am not trying to make the best out of the Bill for lawyers. When a coalowner gets up he speaks for coalowners. When a tramp shipowner gets up, of course he speaks for tramp shipowners. No one expects him to speak for a constituent now. That is all out of date. I can understand the surprise and consternation of hon. Members opposite that I should so offend against the practice in the House as to make such a remark. That is because of the reputation that lawyers have. The few bright exceptions have not yet convinced them of the general


honesty of the profession. This is a serious matter and we should take some steps, if not those in our Amendment, to avoid this expenditure falling upon the community through the Commission and, unless we can get some undertaking that

the matter will be reviewed, we must press this to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 190.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Amnion, C. G.
Graves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Barnet, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Leonard, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Macdonald, G. (Into)
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker. P. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Findlay, Sir E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fleming, E. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Assheton, R.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcoster)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanst)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Barclay Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grimston, R. V.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cross, R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'rab'rw'll, N. W.)


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannah, I. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Culverwell, C. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dawson, Sir P.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
De Chair, S. S
Harvey, Sir G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hailgers, Captain F. F. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Danville, Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.


Burghley, Lord
Doland, G. F.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Butcher, H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Higgs, W. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Holmes, J. S.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hopkinson, A.


Cary, R. A.
Dunglass, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Horsbrugh, Florenee


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N)


Channon, H.
Emery, J. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Errington, E.
Hunter, T.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.




Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Kimball, L.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Spans. W. P.


Law, H. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Peake, O.
Stanley, RI. Hon. Oliver (Wm'ld)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Peat, C. U.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fite, E.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Storey, S.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petars, Dr. S. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Soutlhwark, N.)


Lannox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lewis, O.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Liddall, W. S.
Radford. E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lipson, D. L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Little, Sir E. Graham.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rankin, Sir R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lyons, A. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Thomas, J. P. L


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wakefield, W. W.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Magnay, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wayland, Sir W. A


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salt, E. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Moreing, A. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Munro, P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wragg, H.


Nall, Sir J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)



O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Mr. Furness and Sir James




Edmondson.

9.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 61, line 15, to leave out "this Part of."
This paragraph deprives the Commission of the liability to pay costs of proceedings, but there are certain exceptions, and one of them is the very reasonable one that the applicant on his part must have done what he ought to have done. As the Schedule is now worded, the liability is limited to one part of the Schedule, whereas it should apply to the whole Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

9.39 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 61, line 24, to leave out sub-paragraph (6).
This sub-paragraph deals with the power of the High Court in regard to costs. It is one of the elementary ideas in law that costs shall not be a matter for appeal, but shall always be dealt with by a body which intimately knows what the circumstances are. Sub-paragraph (2) lays down:
If two or more notices of claim are served in relation to the same holding, the liability of the Commission under this paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them if a single notice only had been served, so however, that the Commission may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the service of more than one notice was

justified having regard to any special circumstances.
That is clearly a question which need not go to the High Court. There cannot be any dispute on whether there are two claims, and if there are two claims, there cannot be any dispute as to there being only one set of costs. In the third subparagraph, it is provided:
The Commission shall not be liable under this paragraph to pay any costs in a case in which the holding in question is ultimately certified to have no value.
There cannot be any dispute about that. The fourth sub-paragraph says:
The Commission shall not be liable to pay any costs under this paragraph incurred by a person who has neglected to comply at the due time with any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule that impose upon him a duty in connection with the valuation of the holding in question, whether with respect to the delivery of an estimate of the value of the holding, to the furnishing of information with relation thereto or to any other matter.
That is a simple question of fact. It is not a matter about which anybody can conceivably want to go to the High Court. The fifth sub-paragraph says:
The Commission shall not be liable to pay any costs under this paragraph incurred by a person intervening in respect of any intervention on his part which was not reasonably requisite for the proper valuation of the holding in question.
That is the only sub-paragraph which can raise any debatable point. It raises the point as to whether intervention was


reasonably requisite. Surely the Commission is an infinitely better judge than the High Court as to that. The valuation will be done by the regional valuation committees. The Commission will be thoroughly conversant with the whole of the proceedings before the valuation committees and the whole way in which these cases are being dealt with, and whether the intervention in a particular case helps or does not. It will be entirely foreign to the High Court, and it is, in our submission, infinitely better in this case that the Commission, which is to be a public body, for which the President of the Board of Trade will be responsible in this House, should exercise its discretion as to whether or not intervention is reasonably requisite for a proper valuation. We therefore suggest that this additional appeal, which I suppose will be at the cost of the Commission, in these circumstances would only add still more to the eventual cost of the acquisition of the mining royalties. We think this is a very unnecessary power, which will only cause more litigation, and as we have set up a public body to which the right hon. Gentleman is going to be responsible for appointing suitable people, we must trust those people to deal properly and fairly in the matter of costs, and they will be far the best judges of the matter. Therefore we suggest that this reference to the High Court should be omitted.

9.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said as to the capacity of lawyers to approach problems without having regard to their own professional interests. He started by saying that it was not usual for there to be an appeal as to costs. I am sure he will agree that it is also a general legal principle that people should not be judges in a matter which affects them personally. The decision of the Commission as to costs is a matter which affects the funds for which the Commission is responsible, and, therefore, in a case in which you, in the first instance, put power as to costs in the hands of the persons who will have to pay them or not, according to their decision, we thought it right to provide machinery for an appeal. In fact, under these subparagraphs they are deciding whether they shall or shall not pay costs.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in some of the matters dealt with in these sub-paragraphs there could be no dispute, but I think he was wrong in saying that sub-paragraph (5)— "reasonably requisite for the proper valuation" —was the only matter as to which there could be a dispute. I think there could be a dispute as to subparagraph (2). If there is a matter that is clear, there is an appeal to the High Court, and the costs of that appeal will be in the discretion of the High Court, and the High Court, exercising that discretion, will simply mulct in the costs of that appeal the person who has made a useless and futile use of this subparagraph.

Sir S. Cripps: I think I must have misunderstood the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) if the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The latter part of it is purely discretionary, but he does not suggest, does he, that under it the High Court could order them to pay costs?

The Attorney-General: It may be an absolute discretion, and it may be that the scope of this right is limited, but if anybody sought to exercise it where it was plain that there was no ground on which the Commission's decision could be reviewed, the only effect of that would be that they would have to pay the costs of the futile application to the High Court. At any rate, we agree that there is one debatable point, and in our view, the fact of there being one debatable point is sufficient to justify the subparagraph, particularly having regard to the fact that this is a matter in which the Commission appear to be made in the first instances judges in their own interest. We think that justifies putting in the right of appeal, the costs of which will be in the discretion of the High Court, which, as my hon. and learned Friend very well knows, can well be trusted to mulct in costs those who make a futile and unjustified use of their rights.

9.50 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite dealt with all the points, but let us see how far we can agree. I think he is substantially agreed that the only point really in dispute is in sub-paragraph (5), and therefore I ask him to limit this to subparagraph (5). The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. He agrees


that in sub-paragraph (3) there cannot be any dispute. That is obvious. Then do not let us help people to try and make disputes by including sub-paragraph (3). The only appeal which really could be required would be against the exercise of some discretion. Therefore, if we are agreed that sub-paragraph (3) cannot bring in the exercise of discretion at all, let us cut out sub-paragraph (3). Subparagraph (2) is very important. If the latter part of the sub-paragraph is one for an unfettered discretion on the part of the Commission, it should not be included, because if it is, it will at once open the question as to whether Parliament intended that that discretion was to be controlled by the High Court. I do not think that can be our intention, because
the Commission may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the service of more than one notice was justified.
That is a real gift. In hard circumstances the Commission can give some extra money for costs. That is surely not intended to go to the High Court. It is important that if that is so, it should be eliminated. That deals with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3). Cannot we eliminate sub-paragraph (3) at any rate? As regards the point made by the learned Attorney-General about people being judges in their own cause, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman was here while we were discussing mineral agents. This is rather a different matter, because here the people are not dealing with their own interests at all, and this is much more analogous to the case of the engineers of a local authority, who are made the judges under a contract as to whether certain work has or has not been property performed. Constantly officers of public authorities are made the final judges in matters of that sort. These people are administering a fund, and as administrators they are in a different position from mineral agents representing a definite private interest in which they and their employers will definitely benefit in certain circumstances.
This matter might well be left to the Commission, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists upon giving in some particular case this right of appeal, then I ask him to restrict it to the narrowest possible limits, so that we shall not tempt

people to go to the High Court. In these cases we have a lot of litigants who become cross, and say: "I will take it to the House of Lords," or whatever court it may be. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General knows the type. They are just the sort of people who will take advantage of a Clause like this and take up a case simply because they are cross. I do not want to give those cross people an opportunity to go to court simply because they are cross. I suggest that this is a case where the discretion ought to be left to the Commission. Unless we get some concession I am afraid that we shall have to go to a Division.

9.56 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to say categorically that this particular question may not arise under sub-paragraph (4). It may also arise under subparagraph (2), assuming for the moment that it may be a matter for discretion. My hon. and learned Friend knows that even in the exercise of a discretion there has to be some grounds upon which the discretion can be exercised. He says that it is a great pity to encourage people who are cross to go to the courts. I agree with that statement. There is, however, an advantage in enabling cross persons to have the right to go to court, even though it may be rather a futile proceeding on their part. It may engender more bitterness if you deprive them of that right than if you allow them to go to court and have a certain amount of trouble and perhaps be mulcted in costs. While agreeing with the force of a great deal of what was said by the hon. and learned Member I suggest that, having regard to the context in which this power is conferred, it is better on the whole to leave the general right of appeal realising that those who get good legal advice from their legal advisers will be told that in most cases an appeal to the High Court will be futile.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Surely the Attorney-General is wrong in what he has said about subparagraph (2). That sub-paragraph gives a discretion to the Commission to pay to certain people costs which they would not otherwise get. The Attorney-General says that the discretion must be exercised on proper grounds, and that it is sometimes right to have an appeal about the exercising of the discretion. I am afraid


that he has put the point upside down. This is not a discretion to take away costs, but it is a discretion to the Commission to give costs to people which they could not otherwise get. If we leave the legislation as it stands, what will it mean? Notwithstanding that it is a virtually universal rule that when a discretion is exercised to give somebody something and not to take something away, that you should never make that the subject of appeal, but we shall be telling the Court that Parliament has enacted certain provisions which mean that there can be an appeal. Under sub-paragraph (2) there

is a present of extra costs that can be given, and the High Court, therefore, would be compelled to hold that here it is intended that this can be the subject of appeal, even where you are exercising the discretion of giving some money away. This is not a case of giving money away to the coal miners but to certain interested people.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 107.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Emery, J. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Apsley, Lord
Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Assheton, R.
Findlay, Sir E.
Mills, Major J. D (New Forest)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fleming, E. L.
Moreing, A. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fyfe, D. P. M
Nall, Sir J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Greene, W. P- C. (Worcestor)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Peake, O.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Peat, C. U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Bull, B. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Butcher, H. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heilgers, Captain F F. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cary, R. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hopkinson, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rowlands, G.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salt, E. W.


Conant, Captain R. J- E.
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Law. R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Spens. W. P.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'n'ld)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Culverwell, C. T.
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Storey, S.


Dawson, Sir P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


De Chair, S. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denville, Alfred
Lyons, A. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sutcliffe, H.


Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Thomas, J. P. L.




Wakefield, W. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wragg, H.


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wall, Major G. S. Harvie
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Wayland, Sir W. A
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Furness.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, O. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton. T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, C. H.

10.11 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 62, line 10, after "and," to insert "the Commission."

This Amendment deals with the certification of values for purposes of payment of compensation. As the Schedule now stands, the regional board having certified to the Commission the amounts ascertained by the valuation has to send on a copy of the certificate to the claimant On further consideration we think that this could be done more cheaply and quickly by the Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 63, line 30, to leave out from "all," to "either," in line 32, and to insert "acquired interests comprised in the holding."
This is only a drafting point in connection with the payment and disposal of compensation, and it relates to what are described earlier in the Bill as prior interests.

We consider that the form of words now proposed is more convenient.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 63, line 33, to leave out "or request had been received," and to insert "request or notice had been received or given."
The Committee will recollect that on the Second Schedule an Amendment was accepted dealing with notice. This Amendment is consequential on that.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 63, line 37, to leave out "is," and to insert "was."
The Committee will be glad to know-that this Amendment is being made purely for grammatical reasons.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 65, line 2, to leave out from the beginning, to "are," in line 4, and to insert:


At any time before the vesting date, or after that date but before the relevant certificates have become conclusive under paragraph 17 of this Schedule, the Commission, if they.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is the Amendment in my name to page 63, line 42, not to be called?

The Chairman: No, it is not selected. I think I am saving the hon. Member from trouble by not selecting it, because I am quite sure it would not be possible for him to move that Amendment without breaking the Standing Orders.

Captain Crookshank: We have now come to the part of the Schedule which deals with the responsibility of the Commission for making payments on account. This first Amendment on line 2 is really only verbal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 65, line 7, leave out "ascertained to be."

In line 7, leave out from "amount," to "make," in line 8, and insert "may." —[Captain Crookshank.]

10.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 65, line 12, to leave out "A sum paid under this provision," and to insert:
Provided that no payment on account shall be made under this paragraph, except with the consent of the person entitled, either

(a) before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty; or
(b) unless the Commission have given to the person entitled not less than three months' notice in writing of their intention to make the payment.
(2) A payment on account made under this paragraph.
This is a little longer and a more important point. The Amendment provides that the consent of the person entitled to the compensation must be obtained and that payment shall not be made before 1st January, 1940, or unless the Commission have given not less than three months' notice of their intention to make the payment.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might amplify the statement he has just made, as it is not quite clear to hon. Members on this side of the Committee as to why he should insert the Amendment. Is it the intention to force payment on to the claimant?

Captain Crookshank: I was assuming that the hon. Gentleman knew the general purport of the Amendment and I am prepared to explain it further. What is envisaged here is that, supposing, before the final compensation date the Commission think it wise to make payment on account, they can do so, if they are satisfied that the valuation has advanced sufficiently far to enable them to estimate how much they can pay on account. The effect of the Amendment is that unless the person entitled to receive the money agrees, no such payment should be payable before 1st January, 1940. Three months' notice is to be given because if a certain person knew that a sum of money was coming to him on a certain date it might help him, in disposing of his mortgage for example, to give notice on that point so that he would not have to pay the mortgage interest and also the interest on the money received on account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees the point. It would be rather silly if he was going to receive money which he would use to pay off the mortgage, that he should not be given notice, otherwise he would pay interest which was quite unnecessary.

10.18 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Assume that the money is available on 1st June under this provision, the Commission cannot pay the amount on 1st June, but will have to give three months' notice and not be able to pay until 1st September. If they could pay the money on 1st June, a man could invest it for three months on short term, or do anything else he liked with it. We on this side are not in the position of realising what it means when you are owed a lot of money and provision is put into the Bill that it shall not be paid to you. Most people are generally glad to get it. The Bill envisages a rather curious state of affairs. If people do not get their money, they will get more in royalties. In other words, the Commission will save money by being able to pay as quickly as possible.
During the period in which royalties will continue to be collected by the person who is to receive compensation the royalties will be considerably more than the interest on the compensation money. That is apparent from the arrangement for 15 years' purchase, which obviously means that they will get a greater amount in royalties than by the interest on their


compensation money when it is invested. Similarly, the quicker the Commission can get into their hands the right to receive royalties and pay out in respect of compensation, the better off the Commission will be. It is not assumed that the Commission is to pay money, and the man is still to receive royalties. I cannot understand anybody wanting to have this money not being paid it. There is a set-off, I know, but the longer a man is in the possession of his royalties and not in receipt of the interest on the money, the better for him. Similarly, the other way, the better for the Commission. Therefore, the Commission are not to be allowed to do this, although they want to.
The assumption for the insertion of this provision envisages a provision in which the Commission want to pay off before 1st January, 1940, but are not to be allowed to do so. Why not? If they have raised the money and got it invested on short-term Government securities at I per cent. they would rather use it in paying the compensation than in getting interest on the money invested. Who is going to stop them? The answer must be that if anybody is going to suffer it must be the owner of the royalties who gets the money. Why is he going to suffer? This is to protect him. It says that the Commission shall not pay before a certain date and shall not pay unless there is three months' notice. Why? What harm is it going to do anybody to be paid money? Obviously, the only reason is that a man will not be as well off when he receives the money as he was before. The hon. and gallant Member's explanation about notice of mortgage is "all my eye and Betty Martin." Surely it is better to have the money than to have three months' notice. If someone comes to me and says, "I owe you £10,000" and says, "Will you have it now or on three months' notice?" I should say, "Give it to me now." The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "This is a wonderful arrangement. We have money available to pay, but we are going to give three months' notice. How much better off you will be." That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says. That cannot be the reason for this provision. It is too fantastic even for a National Government. Perhaps the right hon.

Gentleman who is looking so eager will give us the real explanation.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The object of the Clause is that if it is found that during the period before the vesting day, there is an opportunity of raising a part of this money, naturally it will be raised at a convenient time from the point of view of the Commission. Clearly, the money having been raised by the Commission, they will want to put it to use, and therefore, they will want to pay it out on account. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the provisions of Sub-section (2), he will see that there is no monetary gain in the way of income either to the Commission or to the owners by reason of this payment on account. The owner will go on receiving his royalties until the vesting date. He will, of course, between the time of payment and the vesting date receive the interest on the compensation that is invested; but after the vesting date, when the time comes for full compensation to be paid to him, both the capital sum and the interest he has received will be taken into account and deducted from it. Therefore there is no difference from the point of view of income. The only prejudice that the royalty owner might suffer is that money on account might be paid to him at a time when, from the point of view of reinvestment, it is a bad time. That is why this Clause is compulsory and not merely permissive. The recipient might say, "The time chosen for this payment is a time when the opportunities of reinvestment are bad, and therefore I am not prepared to take it."

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the three months' notice? Seeing that the three months' notice is a condition which the person must accept, how does that affect the matter, if the intention is to put the person concerned in a better position from the point of view of reinvestment?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why should this be made compulsory, because it is so much to the advantage of the royalty owner that he should receive this that to make it compulsory is absurd. I do not agree that it is necessarily to his advantage. If the money is raised at a time when the market is favourable for raising money, the hon.


and learned Gentleman will realise that that is a time when it is unfavourable for investment. If one raises money cheaply, when one reinvests money one gets a low rate of interest; and the time when the market is favourable for a man who raises money is a time when it is unfavourable for a man who invests money. Therefore, the owner may say that the time which suits us for raising the money with which to pay him is prima facie a time when it is difficult for him to reinvest it. Therefore, the Clause is made compulsory so that we shall be certain that if the Commission does raise money, they will be able to pass it on to the owner on account of compensation. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that at any rate it is a wise precaution.
With regard to the next point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made, it is clear that, in fact, no payment of this kind could be made before 1940. The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the process of valuation has to be considerably advanced before it will be safe for the Commission to pay out any money on account to a particular owner. It is clear that the Commission will not be in a position to pay out before 1940, and if they are not in a position to do so, it is just as well to indicate to the owners that they will not be forced to take money which they do not desire before 1940. Similarly, with the question of three months' notice. There is no question of three months' notice if you are paying out money by agreement. What we are supposing are circumstances where the Commission propose to pay to an owner who is not willing; and before a man is in those circumstances paid a large sum of money which he has to find means of disposing of and investing to the best of his ability, he should have three months' notice to enable him to make his preparations.

10.31 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am beginning to see what is working in the brain of the right

hon. Gentleman. He is President of the Board of Trade and he is the person familiar with the workings of trade, trade booms, depressions and so on. He refers to 1940. What is the significance of that date? The National Government will remain in power until 1st January, 1940, and God help the man who has to invest during that period. But the right hon. Gentleman sees a hope for him. The Government will then be replaced, a firm basis for investment will arise in this country under the next Labour Government, and it will be safer then to invest money. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) must not laugh, for it is his own Government provision that he is supporting. The 1st January, 1940, is a significant date. Here is the right hon. Gentleman so much taken up with the cares of the royalty owners that he is even protecting them against the National Government. They are not to be forced to have money during this period because the prospects are so gloomy. Apart from that, I can see no possible reason for putting the date in. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not necessary because no money can be paid away before that date. Why, then, put it in? As regards the three months' notice, does he suggest that three months is necessarily going to lead to a better opportunity for investment, that, whatever the period, if you invest in three months' time you can always get a much better chance than now? He says that, no matter when it is decided to pay the money, to do so three months ahead is always better than now. It is ridiculous.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 98.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Balfour, Cap). H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Bull, B. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Butcher, H. W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cartland, J. R. H.


Assheton, R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Carver, Major w. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cary, R. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)




Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Channon, H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Higgs, W. F.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkinson, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florenco
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'sl'r s. G'gs)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hunter, T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rowlands, G.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Salt, E. W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kimball, L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cross, R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Scott, Lord William


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shakespeare, G- H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lewis, O.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dawson, Sir P.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


De Chair, S. S.
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lipson, D. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Spens. W. P.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S


Dunglass, Lord
Lyons, A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eckersley, P. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emery, J. F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Errington, E.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moreing, A. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nall, Sir J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wragg, H.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.



Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peat, C. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Captain Hope and Sir James


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Fool, D. M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gallacher, W.
Lathan, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lawson, J. J.


Ammon, C. G.
Geoge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)



Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leonard, w.


Banfield. J. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R


Barr, J.

Logan, D. G.


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.


Bellender, F. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.


Burke, W. A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.


Chater, D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Milner, Major J.


Cove, W. G.
Hollins, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hopkin, D.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Daggar, G.
Jagger, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.


Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pritt, D. N.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)







Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Westwood, J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Sexton, T. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Simpson, F. B.
Tomlinson, G.



Smith, E. (Stoke)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

10.40 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 65, line 32, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
This Amendment is purely introductory, and the next Amendment is a very small technical provision relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 65, line 39, at the end, insert:
(2) In the case of a holding that could have been sold as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph eighteen of this Schedule under powers conferred by the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts, the compensation paid in respect thereof and the income thereof shall be held and disposed of, and the said Acts shall have effect, in like manner as if the compensation had been money paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners upon a sale under the said Acts of the premises in which the holding subsisted.
Provided that if the holding was a reversion and the rent reserved by the lease was subject, by virtue of a scheme in force under the said Acts, to a direction for the payment thereof to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the benefit of their common fund, the direction shall have effect in relation to the income of the compensation as it had effect in relation to the rent.

In page 66, line 14, after "provisions," insert "of this paragraph and."—[Captain Crookshank.]

10.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 66, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Commission shall not be liable to pay under this paragraph any costs incurred by a person who or whose predecessor in title has neglected to furnish to the Commission information, relevant to the ascertainment of the person entitled to the compensation for the holding, that he is required by this Schedule, or has been reasonably required by the Commission, to furnish to them. The High Court shall have power, on the application of a person aggrieved by a denial on the part of the Commission by virtue of this sub-paragraph of liability to pay any such costs as aforesaid, to give such directions as to the matter in question as appear to the Court to be just.

(3) In case of difference as to the amount of any costs, other than costs of Court proceedings, that the Commission are liable under this paragraph to pay, the Board of Trade may direct in what manner they are to be taxed.
The purpose of this Amendment is to fill an omission by introducing into this part of the Schedule provisions which have already been passed with regard to the earlier part of the Schedule as to the liability of the Commissioners for costs. It provides that the Commissioners shall not be liable to pay costs incurred by persons who neglected to furnish the Commission with information which, if it had been furnished, would have prevented costs being incurred. It also contains a taxation provision similar to what has already been passed in the earlier part of the Schedule and a reference to the High Court of a similar kind to that upon which we have already divided.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 67, line 8, to leave out from "sub-lease," to the first "and," in line 10.
This Amendment and the following Amendment are both consequential on Amendments which have already been passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 67, line 15, at the end, insert:
with the exception of any such interest that is a retained interest by virtue of a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act."—[The Lord Advocate.]

10.46 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I think that this would be a convenient point at which to move to report Progress. Extremely good progress has been made this evening; we have given the right hon. Gentleman the greatest assistance that we can; and I suggest that, if Progress were reported now, we should still have time to finish


the rest of the Schedules at a conveniently early hour on Monday. We have all been working at fairly high pressure keeping these things going. I know that hon. Members opposite have; the pressure has been so great at some moments that they have gone off the rails. In the circumstances, I suggest that our master should set us free for the rest of the evening.

Mr. Stanley: rose—

The Chairman: I may say that I do not propose to put that Motion for the moment.

Mr. Stanley: Then I am afraid I do not know to what Motion I am speaking. I readily express my appreciation of the very valuable aid that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has given us during the passage of the Schedule. I am genuinely grateful for a number of suggestions which have been made, in no party spirit but with an obvious desire to improve the machinery of the Schedule. With regard to business, I suggest that the series of Amendments that have been put down to the Fourth Schedule are all on one point, and that a narrow one; and that the most convenient thing would be for the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to move the Amendments. We could then see, from his explanation of them and any subsequent discussion, whether they are more formidable than I believe them to be, and, if so, we can move to report Progress.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for separation of vested and non-vested premises that are demised together by a subsisting lease.)

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 71, line 7, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 11, and to insert:
(a) prepare a draft of the proposed substituted lease, of the premises comprised in the subsisting lease the immediate reversion wherein is vested in the Commission (in this Schedule called 'the transferred premises'), and deliver a copy thereof, and a copy of any revision thereof, to each of the persons, other than the Commission, who are for the time being interested in the premises comprised in the subsisting lease whether as lessors or lessees or as consenting to the demise, and shall prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the person or persons for the time being occupying the position of lessor under the subsisting lease (in this Schedule called 'the existing lessor') that such proposed substituted lease

contains all proper provisions for protecting the interests of the persons interested in the premises comprised in the subsisting lease the immediate reversion wherein is not vested in the Commission (in this Schedule called 'the remaining premises'), or in any other premises not being part of the transferred premises against anything which may be done or may happen in, or in connection with, the, transferred premises, or any operations therein or connected therewith during the term of the substituted lease of the transferred premises, such provisions being similar to and not less favourable to those persons than the provisions for similar purposes contained in the subsisting lease; and
(b) give notice in writing to the existing lessor requiring the preparation by him of a draft of the proposed substituted lease of the remaining premises and serve a copy of such notice on the lessee under the subsisting lease.
All our Amendments to the Fourth Schedule with the exception of that in page 71, line 36, to leave out "Board of Trade," and insert "President of the Law Society," which stands in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) comprise one group. Perhaps I may treat that as a separate point. The Fourth Schedule is the Schedule, under which separate leases have to be prepared where the existing lease contains coal hereditaments and other hereditaments which are not to pass to the Coal Commission. Two separate leases have to be prepared, one of the coal hereditaments, of which the Commission becomes the lessor, and the other of the hereditaments, of which the original lessor or his successors in title remain in reversion. The Schedule, as drafted, proposes that the leases in each case should be prepared by the Commission. Conveyancing practice has always been that the lessor prepares the draft of his own lease. There is no objection to the preparation by the solicitors for the Commission of the leases of the hereditaments which pass to the Commission, but the solicitors' profession strongly object to the suggestion that the leases of the hereditaments which are not going to pass to the Commission should be prepared by anyone except the solicitors for the lessors.
In practice it is obviously desirable that that should be so because a great number of existing leases are long-term leases and the title to the reversion of the other hereditaments may have changed very considerably, and no one will know who the proper lessees are except the solicitors of the original lessors. In addition, the


proper description of the parcels that are going to be retained will be far better known in the first instance to the solicitors who have been and are acting for the lessors. There is no good reason why the ordinary conveyancing practice should be varied. All the Amendments after the first two are consequential and are a matter of machinery.

10.52 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I cannot help thinking that there may be considerations which my hon. and learned Friend has overlooked. The problem here is not quite the normal one of ordinary preparation of a lease. It is a case where a document which confers rights in respect to different premises has to be settled. I cannot but think that it is for the convenience of every one that the preliminary draft cutting the document in two should be prepared by one person, or by the legal advisers of one person. The object is that the two documents should ultimately contain all that is in the original document. If you have two people independently drawing up drafts, there is a possibility that there will be a gap between them and something will be left out, whereas if one person prepares the two original drafts one can be more certain that the two will contain everything that is in the document. The draft the preparation of which is to be done by the Commission is simply a preliminary draft. It has to be sent at once to the lessor. Objection can be taken to it, and I do not at present see anything in the Schedule inconsistent with the practice by which the final document to be approved, signed, sealed and delivered should be treated as approved and finally drafted by the solicitor to the lessor.
I cannot but think that it is for the convenience of everyone that the first document to be considered should be drawn up by one person. That is our present view. We have no desire to do anything except arrive at the result by the most convenient, proper and economic method, and as at present advised we think this procedure does no violence to the ancient traditions of the profession, and it really is a practical way of starting the solution of a problem which in some cases may introduce matters for discussion and in others may be quite an easy and simple problem to solve, namely, putting into two documents what was previously in one.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I speak with some diffidence on this subject, upon which the Committee has just been addressed by two very eminent legal gentlemen. But, as I understand it, here are a body of people who in the ordinary way do their job on behalf of their clients, and a new body, which as yet has no existence, is proposed to do the job, which strictly I do not think they ought to do. The Attorney-General says that, perhaps, on balance, it may be better that the Commission should do it. But if you are going to make a change and take away from a particular group of legal gentlemen the work they normally do, there is an obligation on those who propose the change to make a much stronger case than we have heard from the Attorney-General. As far as I can gather, after listening to the two hon. and learned Gentlemen, the one who proposes that the thing should be left alone has made a substantial case, and, against that, a stronger case has not been made by the Attorney-General; so it seems to me that the Attorney-General has lost.

10.57 p.m.

Major Milner: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has just said, and, as a strong trade unionist, I object to this blackleg labour. I will address myself to a practical point. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the case of a solicitor for a property owner who, for many years, has made himself acquainted with the facts, circumstances, boundaries, positions and rights of the property? He is surely better qualified to do what is necessary than the Commission or their legal advisers, who come freshly to the work. These are extremely complicated and difficult matters. I can speak with a clear conscience, because I do not happen to act for mineral owners, and never have done; and I submit that the well-established practice of the solicitor doing the work he has done for many years ought not to be changed for quite a new practice, under which new solicitors would do the work without the knowledge which probably the old solicitors have. I understand that the Law Society agree in principle with the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will do what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) urged them to do, and retain the present practice.

10.59 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I hope the Government will not do anything of the sort. We are all ready to assist trade unionists in every way we can, but this is a question of a sectional interest, as against a community, or national, interest. Surely the situation is that when the Commission are exercising the powers conferred on them by Section 10 of the Act, they will be acting in the position of landlords, and they will be settling the new lease as landlords. The learned Attorney-General says that it is better in the first instance to get the document initiated at one office, and that you are more likely to get an accurate register of two documents if they are settled side by side. In so far as the Commission is responsible, as it is under this, it will initiate the division, which seems to us to be the sensible and practical step to take. What ultimately happens between the lessor of the property that does not belong to the Commission and the lessee is entirely a matter between the lessor and the lessee. They can do what they like and arrange for anybody they like eventually to settle the lease between them.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Spens: Once the Commission has segregated the minerals which it is going to take over it deals with the lease. As regard the other rights, a great number of these cases are very old leases, and you may find in 1938 that you are dealing with a lease dated 1850. How in the world can the Commission's solicitors set to work to prepare a lease by the present person entitled to the other properties? He has got to send a blank document. He does not know the description of the parties, and the only people who do know it are the family solicitors. He will send a blank document probably completely in the wrong form, and then the family solicitors will take it and put it into shape. I suggest that it is far more sensible to stick to the ordinary practice and let the people who know, the people who have got the information, set to work to prepare the document in the first instance. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider this matter in the interests of everybody, including the Commissioners and their solicitors.

Mr. Assheton: This is clearly a very technical point, but one thing is certain and that is that there will be some nice

pickings for the lawyers. I hope, however, that the learned Attorney-General will be warned by the fact that he has received such warm support in opposition to this Amendment from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and that he will therefore be quite certain to look carefully into the matter before the Report stage.

11.4 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: The Mover of the Amendment pointed out that the Commission will not be able to fill in the documents for the residue of the property. The original lessors will have to fill in all the blanks, and, in fact, they will really have to draft the thing a second time. Who is going to pay the costs? Somebody is going to pay twice. The Government should think again before they mulct the original lessor in having to pay twice.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 71, line 36, to leave out "Board of Trade" and to insert "President of the Law Society."
This is the first of three Amendments. The object is to provide that the arbitrator should be chosen by the President of the Law Society rather than by the President of the Board of Trade. This deals with a very complicated conveyancing practice and, with all respect to the Board of Trade, I would suggest that in a matter of pure conveyancing the President of the Law Society would be more likely to be able to get a conveyancing counsel who would do the job satisfactorily than would the Board of Trade.

11.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This is a very small point. If agreement cannot be reached reference has to be made to an arbitrator, to be agreed upon by the two parties. When the person to be appointed cannot be agreed upon by the parties, we propose that the selection of arbitrator should be made by the President of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is not an interested party and the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly capable of appointing an impartial arbitrator. If it is suggested that he is not capable, I must repudiate that at once. If for any reason there was any difficulty, no doubt


the Board of Trade would constult whom it thought would be able to give reasonable advice. In this matter we think that the final decision ought to be left with the Ministry to choose the arbitrator.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.